Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Licensing Act

Stephen Hammond: What recent meetings she has had with representatives from amateur sports clubs regarding the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003.

Richard Caborn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no recent meetings on that subject, but my officials remain in close touch with the Central Council for Physical Recreation about the implementation of the Act. The Government have actively supported community amateur sports clubs through lottery funding and tax benefits over recent years and are taking full account of their concerns.

Stephen Hammond: I represent one of the finest sporting venues and clubs in the country, which will of course be an Olympic venue in 2012, and I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State on what they have done to bring the bid to London. However, does the Minister really recognise the impact of the Licensing Act on many of the smaller clubs in my constituency and across the country? Wimbledon cricket club, for instance, pays £16 at present for a 10-year club licence. It is now applying for the necessary club premises licence, which costs £450 for an application, £320 for annual renewal and £300 for the newspaper advertisement—a total of £1,070. Many such smaller clubs in our constituencies are the lifeblood for those who will be the athletes of the 2012 games. Does the Minister recognise that many of them rely on bar profits to survive, and that many of them may not survive?

Richard Caborn: Very much so. That is why the high-level review will take into account all the discrepancies that may arise. I say "discrepancies" for a simple reason. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a particular club, but the vast majority of sports clubs will fall in a band between about £70 and £100. When the CCPR visited my Department, it cited the Heaton tennis and squash club as one of the clubs to which we should give the facility not to make such payments. It stated:
	"The club has a very active social scene. It is easy to meet new friends. The bar area is the main hub of activity, offering cheap prices and a wide selection of drinks, including regular specialist guest beers."
	That is probably a very wealthy club, and it would be wrong to give exemptions to that type of club. However, in the case of a small cricket club, the high-level group would look into the situation. The vast majority of genuine sports clubs will pay between £70 and £100 a year, less than they pay at present for an occasional licence.

Derek Wyatt: I, too, have clubs that face the same problems as Wimbledon cricket club, such as Sheerness golf club and Sheppey rugby club. Has my right hon. Friend considered whether, on Second Reading of the Olympics Bill, we could add a clause to help clubs when they are caught by the Act? They are charged on the basis of rateable values, but not on the lower rateable value.

Richard Caborn: The calculation is based on the non-domestic rate and turnover. If there is genuine concern among such sports clubs, the high-level group will look into it. That applies not just for sports clubs but for the whole implementation of the Act. We gave the Local Government Association those assurances when we said that we would examine implementation, but there is a major difference for sports clubs that are run both as major social clubs and genuine amateur sports clubs, and we shall have to look into that.

Patrick McLoughlin: Why are the only people who think that there is no problem whatever in the implementation of the Licensing Act Ministers in the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Richard Caborn: I think that that is a bit churlish, to say the least. Under the current licensing system, many amateur sports clubs have to pay a considerable amount for occasional licences, including payments of between £20 and £30 to solicitors to make applications to court. When we have streamlined the system, by bringing six licensing regimes into one, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that sports clubs and all other licensed premises will be far better off and we shall have shifted all the red tape that the Opposition have been asking us to move for years.

David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although it is up to licensed premises to approach local authorities, it would help if local authorities were more proactive? There is still much ignorance among smaller amateur clubs that rely on bar takings about what to do, so it would help ifcentral Government, without instructing local government, could at least put some pressure on local government to take the initiative in explaining what clubs should be doing?

Richard Caborn: That is a little unfair on local authorities, and I say that from some experience. Last night, I went down to the Sheffield Trades and Labour club, which actually has its licence, and the local authority—Sheffield—assisted it greatly in getting the licence through. The LGA has been very proactive in helping licensees in making their applications. It is wrong to say that local authorities have not been proactive, because they have.

Theresa May: I am amazed at the complacency of the Minister's response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who highlighted in clear focus the problems facing many local sports clubs. The Minister likes to quote the CCPR. Well, the CCPR has urged the Government to
	"stop crippling grassroots sport with extra cost and bureaucracy".
	We are all excited that the Olympics are coming to the UK, but it is no good destroying the small, voluntary sports clubs that nurture our future Olympic athletes. The Minister has set up the licensing fees review panel, but it will not report until autumn 2006. Will he now bring forward the review, tell it to report by the November deadline this year and agree to backdate any proposed reductions in fees?

Richard Caborn: On 5 April, there were discussions in my office with my officials and the chair and the chief executive of the CCPR. We asked them to come forward with their problems and give us examples. To date, three months on, not one word has been heard from the CCPR. People cannot start to challenge us unless they have the evidence. We have met the CCPR. The right hon. Lady quotes the CCPR saying that we are crippling amateur sports clubs. We have given the CCPR an opportunity. We have had meetings with the CCPR. We have challenged it to come forward with the evidence. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Lady listen? [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady has come to the Dispatch Box and cited the CCPR. I am challenging the CCPR to produce the evidence that it promised my officials three months ago.

Nia Griffith: What steps she is taking to ensure that the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 will take local concerns into account.

James Purnell: Giving local communities real influence was one of the Government's key objectives in introducing a new licensing regime, and that remains so as implementation progresses. Local flexibility is built in to the 2003 Act, allowing decisions to be made that fully reflect local circumstances, including the views of the police and local residents.

Nia Griffith: Although I welcome the Minister's reassurances that local views will be respected in granting licences, what chance will my constituents have of getting licences revoked or limited if they are not working well in practice?

James Purnell: That is one of the key intentions of the 2003 Act. As my hon. Friend knows, it is very difficult to get a problem pub closed down. For the first time, the Act introduces a power for the local community to review a licence and a power to hit problem licensees where it hurts by asking for their licences to be suspended. It will allow us to close down their premises much more easily, to introduce new conditions and to change the management. Most importantly, it introduces a new offence and a fine of up to £20,000.

David Evennett: Is the Minister aware of the grave concerns of my constituents about 24-hour licensing and the consequences that they fear of an increase in binge drinking and antisocial behaviour? That is already a great problem in many of our town centres. Surely, this measure will make it worse.

James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the Act. The Opposition have expressed worries about 24-hour drinking. Only one application for 24-hour licensing has been granted so far in the whole country, when 60,000 applications have been made. The Act will be much tougher on antisocial behaviour. The problem at the moment is that magistrates have only one power, which is to close down a pub. We will now have much greater powers. I am sure that some of his constituents are worried about areas where there are already too many pubs and, where there is saturation, local authorities will have the power—again, for the first time—to have a presumption that they will not grant any more applications. This is good legislation: it will promote greater flexibility for consumers and the industry, as well as introducing much greater powers against antisocial behaviour.

David Clelland: The Minister will be aware of much local concern about the possible effects of the Licensing Act on local clubs. I have looked at the membership of the licensing fees review panel, under the excellent chairmanship of my old friend, Sir Les Elton, but I notice that no one on the panel seems to have any expertise in non-profit-making private members' clubs. Will the Minister extend the membership of the panel to include a member of the Committee of Registered Clubs Associations, so that the 5,000 private clubs in this country can be represented?

James Purnell: I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and, indeed, representatives of the club movement. There are only five people on the panel, so I do not think that it will be possible to extend the membership, but we would be happy to look at any evidence that is presented. When the Act was passed by Parliament, we made a specific exemption for members' clubs, so that they do not need a personal licence holder. If there is evidence to show that we should do anything else to help the club movement, we will do it.

Peter Ainsworth: What account is the Minister taking of the local concerns of village hall committees in my constituency? I have so far heard from Felbridge, Godstone, Bletchingley, Warlingham, Hurst Green and Limpsfield village hall committees, as well as many user groups, including the Royal British Legion, about the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 on their incomes. The Minister wrote to me on 27 June to say that he had received no reports from the police or licensing authorities of anyone trying to abuse the licences that they have at the moment. The legislation seems pointless in connection with village halls and it imposes undue burdens on people who can ill afford them.

James Purnell: We take those concerns seriously. In fact, I am meeting Action with Communities in Rural England, the body that represents village halls, tomorrow and will listen to any evidence that it has. It has asked us to participate with it in an exercise in which it will examine evidence, and if there is evidence of problems, we will act. We hope that the body will report in November. We have exempted village halls from the need to pay for public entertainment licences, but I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that, where alcohol is served, some licensing regime is needed. However, I emphasise that, if it is shown that any problems exist with village halls, we will act upon that.

Paul Farrelly: It is my pleasure to live just yards away from one of the finest pubs in Staffordshire: "The Gresley Arms" in the village of Alsagers Bank in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Regulars there welcome the Act and the pub experiences no antisocial behaviour. Does my hon. Friend agree that village pubs such as the Gresley should not be criminalised if they want to serve after 11 pm and that the Act—properly policed, of course—should be welcomed by all parties in the House?

James Purnell: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no reason why the responsible majority should be curfewed and have to stop drinking at 11 pm because of the actions of an irresponsible minority. It is much better to do what the Act does and to bring in specific and much more stringent powers for the people who are causing problems and allow the responsible majority to drink in peace.

Don Foster: In Singapore, I had the opportunity of congratulating the Olympic bid team on its great success. May I take this opportunity, on behalf of all my hon. and right hon. Friends, to reiterate those congratulations?
	Turning to licensing, does the Minister accept that one of the last-minute agreements to provide a bulwark for local communities against unwanted late-night drinking was the idea of the special saturation policy? Is he aware that there is such concern about the legal minefield that was created by the guidance on the policy that only a quarter of local councils have taken the opportunity to use it? Will he at least make a commitment today to work with his colleagues in the Home Office to use any legislative opportunity that might avail itself to improve the legal back-up of the policy?

James Purnell: We are working on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill to introduce a range of measures to reinforce the powers to deal with such problems, but I do not think that there is a problem with the framework of the law. We are bringing in a new piece of legislation and devolving power to local authorities, so it is up to them to decide how to implement the law. The hon. Gentleman will recognise it as welcome that, if local authorities are worried about saturation, for the first time, they will be able to turn down applications. Under the current law, they have no opportunity to do so and must grant licences even if there is an excess of booze factories, as they are called, in an area. The Act is a better piece of legislation and when people look at it in one or two years' time, they will probably agree with that.

Malcolm Moss: In relation to the Licensing Act, when did the Government ever take on board the concerns of local sports clubs, village halls and music groups? Answer: never. Why do the Government seem incapable of implementing anything successfully? The whole farce of the Licensing Act is heading for a total debacle. Is that the fault of Ministers or civil servants? Either way, as a local publican in my constituency said to me recently, they could not organise a proverbial in a brewery.

James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman is on thin ice in saying that the Government cannot implement anything effectively given that we have just delivered the Olympic bid. Perhaps he should have taken a leaf out of the book of the Liberal Democrats, who at least had the good grace to acknowledge that, unlike any member of his Front-Bench team, two of whom have now spoken, but have failed to mention that once.
	We made specific concessions for village halls and clubs during the passage of the Licensing Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we made specific concessions on temporary events notices so that the regime would be extended to make it much easier for people to get them. We have listened and we will continue to listen, but when people look back, they will say that it is much better to have a regime that will save the industry £2 billion, that will be more flexible for consumers and that will provide much greater powers to deal with binge drinking. In one or two years' time, I am sure that people will agree that the legislation is much better than the current framework, which was allowed to continue to exist by the Conservatives.

Young People (Summer Activities)

Barbara Keeley: What plans her Department has to fund programmes of summer activities for young people in 2005.

Tessa Jowell: There will indeed be programmes for young people, focusing on sport, creativity and other activities organised during the summer holidays. They will be funded by Departments across Government and also by the lottery. My Department is working closely with the other Departments. There is evidence to show that, among other things, such programmes have an impact on reducing crime among young people. The issue of young people increasing their opportunities through sport was at the heart of the powerful message that we delivered in support of our Olympic bid in Singapore last week. It was a message that was delivered with the support of 30 young people from the east end of London of 20 different nationalities, each of them aspiring to be a gold medallist in London in 2012. It is a proud ambition and one that we want to support with everything that we can. I thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their support for our Olympic bid. The cross-party support on which our bid is founded was important in securing success.

Barbara Keeley: In Salford on 31 July, our young people will be inspired both by watching the triathlon world cup event at Salford Quays and by taking part in their own activities, which are organised round the main event. Given what my right hon. Friend has just said, does she agree that the 2012 Olympics in London offer not only a marvellous spectacle of sport and athletics for all, but the chance to inspire our young people to become more involved in athletics and sporting activities?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is right. From memory, the facility to which she refers at Salford Quays was used during the Commonwealth games and is a good example of the legacy use that enables us to continue to host major championships in future. She is also right about our ambition for young people. That ambition is redoubled with the success of our Olympic bid, which is much more than an infrastructure project building new facilities for the east end of London that will serve for decades to come. It has nothing short of the power to transform the ambitions of young people throughout the country.

Paul Beresford: I have a faint and distant interest. Two sports—rugby and cricket—are English sports that were invented here. Yet somehow two piffling nations in the south Pacific seem consistently able to beat us. Is it not time that we concentrated on those two competitive sports and funded the young? That is how the Antipodeans consistently win in both sports. Can funding continue and increase in spite of, and perhaps in a way because of, the Olympics?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is right to commiserate, but I take him back less than two years to our success in the Rugby world cup, which inspired young people throughout the country who had never before played rugby to give it a try. We do not pluck young champions or winning teams from the air. That is done over years and years through sustained investment, bringing on talent and removing the obstacles to it. That is what we are doing through the school sport programme and talent identification, and the Olympics is a further opportunity.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Outside my home in Crosby, there are 100 nude men on the beach, attracting an enormous amount of interest from young and old alike. They are, of course, the magnificent Gormley exhibition, which may attract 1 million visitors to the area this year. Young children have been out there already and the exhibition has become a major interest for art clubs and lovers of art throughout the country. Would my right hon. Friend consider coming to visit Crosby, as we would dearly love to keep those statues there and raise the funds to do so with her assistance?

Tessa Jowell: As an enormous fan of Anthony Gormley's work, I certainly plan to go to Crosby to see the 100 nude men. I have an enduring memory of "Asian Field", one of his great works that was exhibited on the seventh floor of a car park in Chongqing in China. Even in those circumstances, it was an extremely moving piece, so I thank my hon. Friend for her invitation, which I accept.

Theresa May: I echo the Secretary of State's comments about the importance of winning the Olympic bid in encouraging young people's involvement in sport. I repeat my congratulations to my noble Friend Lord Coe and his bid team on securing the Olympic games for London in 2012. However, when the Government are looking at encouraging young people's involvement in sport, I urge them to remember that it is not just the Olympics but the Paralympics that will come to the United Kingdom. What specific plans do they have to provide extra funding for sports clubs for disabled young people in the run-up to London 2012?

Tessa Jowell: The policy is one of no discrimination between able-bodied and disabled athletes. If the right hon. Lady cares to look the successful athletes supported by the talented athletes scholarship programme she will find that able-bodied and disabled athletes are funded. The position is similar for our 2012 scholarships. At every level, the intention is to ensure that the opportunities available to able-bodied athletes are available through funding to disabled athletes who have the ambition to compete in the Paralympics.

Cultural Participation

Tom Brake: What assessment her Department has made of whether the Government are on course to achieve their targets on cultural participation and attendance of under-represented groups.

David Lammy: The Department has met early its target to increase the number of under-represented visitors to national and regional museums and the historic environment by March 2006. Based on the latest survey information, only one of the six arts attendance and participation targets will be met by March 2006. I have asked Arts Council England to put in place a remedial action plan.

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his honest answer. Can he explain why his Department's annual report said that the Government were on course to meet those targets, when in fact the Government have gone backwards on two of four targets, no progress has been made on the third and only limited progress on the fourth? When does he expect to hit those targets and why is Arts Council England, whose salary costs have gone up by 60 per cent. and which is a joint partner in the delivery of the targets, making so little progress?

David Lammy: It is important to remember that we are the first Government to set targets in this area. There has been an increase in the number of people from the poorest socio-economic groups going to our museums. There has been an increase in the number of black and ethnic minority people visiting heritage sites, historic houses and so on and there is increased participation by the poorest groups in our regional museums. I have asked the Arts Council to put in place a plan to ensure that it meets those targets by March 2006, and I will meet it shortly. It is disappointed at progress so far, but it intends to meet those targets.

Keith Vaz: The Minister is right that progress has been made, but the fact remains that the targets are not being met. Will he look at two areas where there could be an increase: first, in representation, with public appointments to encourage more black and ethnic minority people to become involved in the process; and, secondly, the way in which the Arts Council deals with the allocation of funds for ethnic minority groups? I have written to him about the Emmanuel gospel choir in my constituency, and there is a round robin going between his Department and others. Surely, one way in which to increase confidence in the black and ethnic minority community is to ensure that the process is as consumer-friendly as possible.

David Lammy: I know of the excellence of the Emmanuel gospel choir and I am sure that the meetings that I know my hon. Friend is keen to take up with the Arts Council will bear fruit. I remind him that the Arts Council has been able to increase the amount of money given to black and ethnic minority groups to 10 per cent. of the overall spend. We must applaud that recent progress. But my hon. Friend is right. We want to see progress across the board. That is why it is important that the schemes that the Arts Council has put in place, such as the decibel scheme, to get money down to the grass roots and build capacity in our arts organisations, are supported.

National Lottery (Social Exclusion)

Ann McKechin: If she will make a statement on the impact of the national lottery on social exclusion.

Richard Caborn: Lottery distributors take into account the need to reduce economic and social deprivation when making awards. Many lottery-funded projects have helped regenerate inner cities and create employment and, importantly, have strengthened communities.

Ann McKechin: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that projects such as the Realise organisation in my constituency, which tackles the problem of worklessness in our area, particularly the need for basic literacy and numeracy and the needs of people who suffer from addiction, will continue to receive support from the national lottery programme to ensure that areas can be regenerated?

Richard Caborn: Very much so. Hon. Members should take a leaf out of my hon. Friend's book. She has lobbied hard and been very proactive in getting lottery money into her constituency, and she has instigated a number of events to encourage local organisations to secure funds. That is why her constituency has received over 400 awards—just under £50 million—and I congratulate her on that. On the Big Lottery Fund in particular, the answer is yes. As we have indicated, 60 or 70 per cent. will be going to community groups and charities, so the type of scheme that she describes will continue to get such funding in the future.

Si�n Simon: Will the Minister consider constituencies such as mine? In the past, when we have asked why we are so massively under-represented in the amount of lottery money we have received, we are told, Because you are not applying for enough. Will my right hon. Friend re-examine the mechanisms so that constituencies that may not be applying nevertheless get some of the benefits, which they are certainly paying into?

Richard Caborn: That is a question of administration. My hon. Friend should have a word with our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin), who tabled the question. He could learn a lot from her, as she has been extremely active in that regard. Since 1998, we have encouraged more lottery money to be given in much smaller grantsaround 5,000and half of the money that is now dispensed is in such grants. We are therefore hitting many more organisations with lottery money, which has been welcomed. Nearly half the total amount awarded has gone to the 100 most deprived local authorities. We are trying to ensure that it is dispensed equitably, but it is for organisations to apply. We have taken many steps to make that as simple as possible, and the procedure for applying to the Big Lottery Fund will be much simpler than previously.

Licensing Act

Vincent Cable: What recent discussions her Department has had with the Home Office on the impact of the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 on alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.

James Purnell: I had a bilateral meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety at the Home Office on 19 May and our two Departments regularly discuss these issues. The Home Office is represented on the high level group that steers the implementation of the Act. Both Departments agree that we should implement the Licensing Act 2003 as a key element of the Government's wider programme for tackling alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.

Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware of the latest Government figures suggesting that there has been a 150 per cent. increase in alcohol-related attacks on police officers in London over the past three years? What would be the position of a local authority that declined to issue late-night licences until a funding mechanism has been agreed with nightclub owners and other licensees fully to fund the additional cost of late-night policing?

James Purnell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, those offences happen under the current legislation, which does not have enough powers to deal with problem pubs. As we discussed earlier, there will now be much greater powers. We are also, through the Violent Crime Reduction Bill that is going through this House, bringing in powers to deal with problems that happen outside premises.
	In response to the hon. Gentleman's particular question, the current legislation has a presumption against blanket restrictions, but his local authority could use the powers on saturation. I am happy to write to him about that if it would help.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems is the sale of alcohol to youngsters, which plagues many council estates and other estates in my constituency? What can he do to ensure that local councils use the powers that the Bill is giving them to restrict sales to minors and to address the fact that it will, for the first time, be illegal for people to purchase alcohol for supply to minors?

James Purnell: My hon. Friend raises a vital point. We have to change the culture whereby it is acceptable for nine, 10 and 11-year-olds to be drunk on a Friday night by ensuring that we crack down on off-licences that are selling to youngsters and stop people buying on their behalf. He will be glad to know that, in response to campaigning from members of this Househe was one of those who participated in thatthe fine for selling to under-age drinkers has gone up from 1,000 to 5,000, that there is now a fixed penalty notice scheme for dealing with people who sell to under-age drinkers and, most importantly of all, that under the Violent Crime Reduction Bill there will be a power instantly to close down for 48 hours an off-licence that is doing so. There will be much greater powers, and I commend my hon. Friend and other Members who have campaigned for them.

Hywel Williams: What problems does the Minister foresee in implementing the Licensing Act 2003, given the Government's failure to produce the proper forms in Wales and the temptation for some licensees to think even of trading without a licence?

James Purnell: Initial applications under the Act were slow. Between 3 and 5 per cent. had applied in May. That went up to about 10 per cent. in mid-June, it was 25 per cent. last week, and it is now up to 33 per cent. Applications are starting to pick up, although there is still some way to go. I was glad that we recently had a meeting to discuss this. We have made it clear that we have no objection to anyone using Welsh forms or submitting their application in Welsh and I encourage people to use those powers if they want to. As the hon. Gentleman and other Members requested, we will prescribe the use of a Welsh form in future and for anyone who applies after the Act comes into force.

Museums and Galleries

Andrew Gwynne: How many visitors there were to national museums and galleries in the last period for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

David Lammy: In 200405, there were around 36 million visitors to museums and galleries sponsored by my Department. Since the introduction of free admission, the number of visitors has continued to rise.

Andrew Gwynne: Will my hon. Friend comment on the news that, a result of the Government's free admissions policy, the museum of science and industry in Manchester had a record year last year, with almost 500,000 visitors through its doors? That has massively extended access to its valuable collections. Will he extend his congratulations to all involved on that fantastic achievement?

David Lammy: I congratulate Manchester's museum of science and industry on excellent results in getting that number of people to visit it and see the exhibits. We should also recognise that, a few years ago, one of the challenges for museums was to ensure that the poorest socio-economic groups attended our museums. Nationally, the figure has risen by 8 per cent., and I am pleased that it has gone up in Manchester as well.

Hugo Swire: The staff at our national museums and galleries are clearly doing an excellent job, particularly in the light of recent events. Does the Minister agree that as important as the number of people who come to see our great works of art is the fact that those works of art are free of any stigma? With that in mind, why are the Government still dragging their feet by not introducing legislation to achieve the restitution of Nazi-looted works of art, which they committed to do following the report by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport back in 2000?

David Lammy: It was right to consider the panel's work on such an important issue and we shall present our plans shortly.

Sports Scholarships

Robert Flello: If she will make a statement on the interaction between the talented athlete scholarship scheme and the 2012 Olympic scholarships.

Richard Caborn: The talented athlete scholarship schemeTASSwhich was launched last August, provides funding for our talented young athletes in further and   higher education and employment. More than 1,100 athletes participated in the first year of the scheme. The 2012 scholarship is one strand of TASS. It was launched this year and is designed to fast-track our most talented young people between the ages of 12 and 18 into the world class performance programme. There are currently 120 people on the 2012 scholarship. There is already strong evidence to show that TASS is starting to pay dividends. Indeed, our young people are winning medals in international competition.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving details of national achievements and the national picture. As he and other colleagues know, I have been pushing for Staffordshire, and especially Stoke-on-Trent, to benefit from being an Olympic training venue. How will TASS and other such schemes benefit athletes and potential athletes for the Olympics in my area?

Richard Caborn: I shall be parochial. TASS for 18 to 25-year-olds applies in the west midlands. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) asked about   Paralympians. The age for the higher level has moved to 35. Fifty-seven TASS bursaries and seven 2012 scholarships are available in the west midlands. In Stoke-on-Trent specifically, four TASS bursaries and two 2012 scholarships are available.

John Greenway: Having called almost three years ago for London to make a bid for the 2012 Olympics, I thank the Minister for his work. Everyone else seems to have been mentioned, but not the Minister for Sport and Tourism.
	The point of getting the Olympics in London is to inspire young people to participate in sport. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that we have the number of coaches that we need to train our young athletes and young sportsmen? Does he agree that, in the next five to seven years, we have a great opportunity to train more coaches and ensure that they have the right professional qualifications?

Richard Caborn: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman knows that we had a taskforce on coaching. When I came into the job four years ago, the position of coaching was deplorable. I am pleased that all the governing bodies have come together and that the coaching taskforce's recommendations have been implemented. We have five levels of coaching certificate, which Sports Coach UK is policing. We will provide 3,000 community coachesI believe that 300 or 400 are already in place. Coupled with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement earlier this year about providing competition managers for each school sports partnership, we are building a sustainable sports infrastructure for this country. It will mean not only many more people playing much more sport but bringing through talent, not in an arbitrary but a managed way, so that potential can be realised, with our athletes standing on the podiums in 2012 in London.

Broadcasting (Regional Accents)

David Taylor: If she will make it her policy to promote regional accents in the broadcast media.

James Purnell: The Government are strongly committed to regional broadcasting. Through the Communications Act 2003 and the review of the BBC charter, we will continue to ensure that programmes are made about and in every part of the United Kingdom. We do not have a policy on regional accents, which are a matter for broadcasters, but regional production might be expected to support them indirectly.

David Taylor: The rich variety of British accents and dialects is one of our great cultural assets, which should be preserved and enhanced. Does the Under-Secretary agree that not enough is done to combat the slow socio-linguistic convergence towards effete estuarial English, leading to its dominance in the broadcast media and around the Cabinet table? Is not that the sort of class barrier that inclusive new Labour was set up to break down?

James Purnell: I am not sure whether my accent is estuarial, but my hon. Friend will be glad to know that there is to be more regional production after the charter review and the review of ITV's obligations come into force. It would be very odd indeed if having more programmes made in and about the regions did not support much greater coverage of regional accents. I am sure that my hon. Friend will support that.

Listed Buildings

Tony Baldry: What discussions she has had with the chief executive of English Heritage on the listing of military installations from the second world war.

David Lammy: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no discussions with the chief executive of English Heritage on this subject.

Tony Baldry: Is the Minister aware that English Heritage wants to list a number of rather battered bunkers at the former United States Air Force base at Upper Heyford in my constituency? That is probably one of the largest brownfield sites in Oxfordshire, and such sites are much needed for redevelopment for housing, including affordable housing. The problem is that there are no cost consequences to English Heritage when it lists buildings such as those, and such proposals will destroy the viability of the Government's policy to build more affordable housing on brownfield sites in the south-east. Will the Minister be very kind and talk to his colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to try to get some joined-up government thinking on this issue?

David Lammy: Yes, of course I will. It is right that Ministers consider these cases carefully and look at all the interests involved, but the hon. Gentleman will also know that the Government intend to undertake a heritage protection review next year, precisely to consider the arrangements that we make for listing buildings and to ensure that those arrangements have the transparency and openness that is appropriate for the 21st century.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked

Voting Systems (Scotland)

John Robertson: What discussions the commission has had with the Scottish Executive on the operation of different voting systems in Scotland.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that it maintains contact with the Scottish Executive on a range of electoral issues, but that it has had no discussions on the specific subject of the operation of the different voting systems in Scotland.

John Robertson: I am somewhat disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's answer, because it is the same answer that I received two years ago, when we were told that no discussions were taking place. Scotland will soon have four different voting systems, and some people regard that as an experiment in terms of what will be done in the rest of the country. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman looked at this matter. Will he talk to his colleagues about it, and ask them to examine the voting arrangements for the 2007 elections? Will they set up their review quickly, so that they can understand the problems that we in Scotland face?

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission takes the view that systems of voting are a political matter that requires primary legislation of the House. They are therefore a matter for Members of the House rather than for the commission. The commission has not thought it appropriate to decide on the merits or otherwise of particular voting systems.

Electoral Registration

Hugh Bayley: What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the resources available to electoral registration officers.

Peter Viggers: The commission informs me that, in its view, some local authorities devote insufficient resources to electoral services. It has therefore recommended ring-fenced central funding for core electoral services, and the development of national performance standards.

Hugh Bayley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's reply. In the City of York, the number of registered electors is dropping like a stone, despite unprecedented numbers of new houses being built there. I know, too, that the problem is not confined to York. Will the hon. Gentleman talk to the Electoral Commission about whether further work needs to be done to examine the reasons that the number of registered electors is falling in so many places, and to determine what needs to be done in conjunction with the electoral registration officers to ensure that everyone who has the right to vote has the ability to do so?

Peter Viggers: I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that work is in hand. Several of the commission's research projects have considered the subject of non-registration. In 2003, the commission published research on registration in Northern Ireland, and it is currently undertaking a project specifically to consider registration in Great Britain. The project will also investigate the reasons for non-registration, the impact of rolling registration, and the difference between local administrative practices and the effect that they have on registration rates. The research is due later this year.

David Heath: Given that the electoral commissioners identified the widened core tasks of returning officers, including maintaining the rolling register and publicising and ensuring maximum take-up of registration, their recommendation that returning officers should in future be funded directly from the Consolidated Fund through the Electoral Commission bears careful consideration. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that requires primary legislation, or would the current legislation, which already allows the Electoral Commission to fund training, also allow it to administer the basic costs of returning officers?

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission takes the view that several issues need to be dealt with in forthcoming legislation, and looks forward to the Government's response to its representations. One point of significance is that the commission has recommended that the Government clarify the legal position of returning officers in relation to funding publicity to encourage registration and voting. Any outstanding uncertainties should be removed through explicit legislative provision.

Postal Voting

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What assessment the Commission has made of the possible use in England and Wales of the Northern Ireland system of proof of identity in postal voting.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission's recent report, Securing the Vote, made recommendations to the Government to improve the security of postal voting, but the commission informs me that it has made no specific assessment of applying Northern Ireland systems to Great Britain.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the integrity of the electoral system, and the prevention of fraud in postal voting, is more important than merely increasing turnout per se? With that in mind, will he ask the Electoral Commission to consider some of the Northern Ireland systems, whereby those who apply must do so in person or have a photograph or photographic document before obtaining a postal vote? Does he agree that that would reduce some fraud?

Peter Viggers: There are significant differences between the voting system in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain, and for that reason the value of read-across is limited. The commission has recommended that date of birth and signature should be collected as a minimum from all electors at the point of registration but recognises that other individual identification details could also be collected, including national insurance numbers. That would be a matter for primary legislation, and the Electoral Commission takes the view that that is primarily a political matter for the House to decide.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked

Stipends

Chris Bryant: What the average clergy stipend is.

Stuart Bell: The average stipend for incumbents for the year 200405 is 18,680. That compares with a recommended national stipend benchmark of 18,480.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend will know that part of what determines how much the stipend is in each individual diocese is whether the diocese has historic assets. Some dioceses are much richer than others. Is not it time that there was a bit more redistribution in the Church of England, so that all clergy, wherever they are, have the same stipend, and that we tried to increase it to at least 20,000, which was the aspiration of the Church some four years ago?

Stuart Bell: Clearly, distribution goes to the heart of those on the Labour Benches, and is something that we all support. My hon. Friend is perfectly right that, as the Central Stipends Authority, the Archbishops' Council calculates the stipends, after consultations with the dioceses and the Church Commissioners, and having due regard for the views of the General Synod. Since the Synod is meeting today, I will ensure that his views are winged to it.

James Gray: Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to let us know how much archbishops and bishops are paid, and if it is more than the rate for ordinary clergy, why that should be the case?

Stuart Bell: The terms of that question are somewhat wide, but I would be happy to provide a written answer to the hon. Gentleman. As for central stipends, the Central Stipends Authority produces a full report each year and, for those who are interested, I would be happy to ensure that a copy is placed in the Library.

Tourism (Religious Buildings)

Ben Chapman: What discussions the Church Commissioners have had with other faiths on encouraging more tourists to visit religious buildings.

Stuart Bell: The Church Commissioners support the Church Heritage Forum's document Building Faith in Our Future, which encourages all local and regional authorities to consider with the Churches and faith groups in their area how the economic effects of tourism can best be reflected in mutually supportive practical and financial help.

Ben Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that faith tourism is an under-exploited resource in terms of local economic development and in terms of providing resources for the maintenance of church buildings? Does he also agree that all major faiths have buildings and festivals of considerable interest, and that inter-faith tourism not only brings faiths together but increases understanding of different faiths and increases the tourism mass? Will he do all in his power to increase the development of inter-faith tourism, and in particular to consider any sensitivities in relation to awarding lottery moneys to faith groups?

Stuart Bell: I am happy to pass on my hon. Friend's final suggestion about the national lottery, but he will be pleased to know that there are many examples of faith groups working together, one of which is the Liverpool walk of faith. The free guide covers a six-mile walk featuring the city's Anglican and Roman Catholic cathedrals, and the buildings of 10 other faiths and denominations. We like to think of the project as just a beginning of the fulfilling of my hon. Friend's aims.

Investment (Israel)

Michael Gove: What representations the Church Commissioners have received on their policy on investment in Israel.

Stuart Bell: I have not had an opportunity before now to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. I gladly do so now. [Hon. Members: Why?] I am not in the business of responding to sedentary questions.
	The commissioners do not have a blanket policy on investment in Israel.

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Anglican Consultative Council recently recommended that the Church disinvest from companies that play a role in safeguarding the security of Israel. Does he agree that it is a great pity that the Church should discriminate against a fellow democracy at this time? Does he also agree that, particularly this week, the Church and many Christians wish to show solidarity and sympathy with another democracy that has been a victim of terrorism and suicide bombings?

Stuart Bell: The Church's ethical investment advisory group receives many representations for and against our various investments, and there have been calls for a certain disinvestment from particular firms. The advisory group has found that investment in a particular company is not in breach of current policy, and has not recommended disinvestment.

Gerald Kaufman: As one who has long advocated economic sanctions against Israel as the only possible way of making that country's incorrigible Government see sense and treat the Palestinians with any decency, may I, as an objective observer, commend the Anglican Church for substituting for the United Nations, the European Union and others that have not the guts and the good sense to impose such sanctions?

Stuart Bell: I surmise that we are straying somewhat wide of questions to the Second Church Estates Commissioner. I can say, however, that the policy of the Church involves investments in various companies, and the companies to which we have referred are not involved in any export of arms to that area. There is therefore no recommendation for the Church to disinvest.
	I repeat what I said earlier: we have no blanket policy on the state of Israel.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked

Compulsory Voting

David Taylor: What assessment the commission has made of the merits of introducing compulsory voting.

Peter Viggers: The commission has not undertaken a detailed assessment of the merits of introducing compulsory voting in the United Kingdom, but has previously expressed the view that its introduction would not in itself provide a solution to the problem of voter disengagement.

David Taylor: I do not think anyone is suggesting that compulsory voting is a panacea in its own right. The recent reduction in turnouts seems to have been halted at the last general election, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be worth piloting such a system in some areas, or for a certain election, if we are to avoid an outcome that will otherwise be inevitable soonthe number of abstentions exceeding the level of support for the governing party in a general election?

Peter Viggers: The commission is studying the effects of compulsory voting in other countries. Its research will be completed and published in 2006.
	Two opinion polls were held recently. In 2003, a MORI poll found that 43 per cent. of people supported making voting compulsory while 48 per cent. opposed it. Another recent survey showed that the main reason why people did not vote was
	You just can't trust politicians to keep their promises.

John Bercow: May I put it to my hon. Friend that he should underline to the commission that leadership, engagement and inspiration are the ways to increase turnout at elections, and that to introduce compulsory voting would be deeply authoritarian and, frankly, the counsel of despair?

Peter Viggers: The commission does not propose to introduce legislation on that basis, and it will have heard what my hon. Friend has said.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked

Church Property (Yorkshire)

Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the property owned by the Church of England in York and North Yorkshire.

Stuart Bell: York and North Yorkshire, like every part of England, has its share of parish churches, churchyards, clergy houses, church halls, schools, land and property held for investment purposes. Sometimes, the legal owner is the local incumbent; in many other cases, it is the diocese.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Has the status of some of the property in and around York changedin other words, has some Church-owned property been sold off?

Stuart Bell: The Synod is sitting this afternoon, but I am not aware of the sale of any particular property in that area.

London Attacks

Tony Blair: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on last Thursday's terrorist attacks in London.
	The number of confirmed dead currently stands at 52; the number still in hospital is 56, some of whom are severely injured. The whole House, I know, will want to state our feelings strongly. We express our revulsion at this murderous carnage of the innocent. We send our deep and abiding sympathy and prayers to the victims and their families. We are united in our determination that our country will not be defeated by such terror, but will defeat it and emerge from this horror with our values, our way of life, our tolerance and respect for others, undiminished. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.]
	I should also like us to record our heartfelt thanks to, and admiration for, our emergency services. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] Police; those working on our underground, buses and trains; paramedics; doctors and nurses; ambulance staff; firefighters; and the disaster recovery teams: all of them can be truly proud of the part that they played in coming to the aid of London last Thursday, and the part that they continue to play. They are magnificent. As for Londoners themselves, their stoicism, resilience and sheer undaunted spirit were an inspiration and an example. At the moment of terror striking, when the eyes of the world were upon them, they responded, and continue to respond, with a defiance and a strength that are universally admired.
	I will now try to give the House as much information as I can; obviously, some of it is already well known. There were four explosions. Three took place on underground trains: one between Aldgate East and Liverpool Street; one between Russell Square and Kings Cross; one in a train at Edgware Road station. All of these took place within 50 seconds of each other, at 8.50 am. The other explosion was on the No. 30 bus at Upper Woburn place, at 9.47 a.m.
	The timing of the tube explosions was designed to be at the peak of the rush hour, and thus to cause maximum death and injury. It seems probable that the attack was carried out by Islamist extremist terrorists of the kind who, over recent years, have been responsible for so many innocent deaths in Madrid, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kenya, Tanzania, Pakistan, Yemen, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco and of course New York on 11 September, but in many other countries, too.
	I cannot give details, for obvious reasons, of the police investigation now under way. I can say that it is among the most vigorous and intensive this country has ever seen. We will pursue those responsiblenot just the perpetrators but the planners of this outragewherever they are, and we will not rest until they are identified and, as far as is humanly possible, brought to justice.
	I should also like to say this about our police and intelligence services. I know of no intelligence specific enough to have allowed them to prevent last Thursday's attacks. By their very nature, people callous enough to kill completely innocent civilians in this way are hard to stop. But our services and police do an heroic job for our country day in day out, and I can say that over the past years, as this particular type of new and awful terrorist threat has grown, they have done their utmost to keep this country and its people safe. As I saw again from the meeting of COBR this morning, their determination to get those responsible is total.
	Besides the obvious imperative of tracking down those who carried out these acts of terrorism, our principal concern is the bereaved; the families of the victims. It is the most extraordinarily distressing time for them and all of us feel profoundly for them.
	Let me explain what we are trying to do. The majority, though I stress not all, of the victims' families now have a very clear idea that they have lost their loved ones. For many, patterns of life and behaviour are well enough established that the numbers of potential victims can now be brought within reasonable range of the actual victims. Some 74 families now have police family liaison officers with them.
	In addition, we have established, with Westminster city council, the police and others, the family assistance centre. This is presently at the Queen Mother sports centre. Tomorrow it will move to a more suitable site at the Royal Horticultural halls in Westminster. I would like to thank the many organisations involved, including the Salvation Army, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Red Cross, Westminster city council and all those counsellors who are helping to staff the centre. In this way we are doing our level best to look after the families. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has taken charge of this aspect as she has done before.
	More difficult is then the process of formal identification. The police are proceeding here with some caution. In previous terrorist attacks of a similar kind in other countries, mistakes have been made, which are incredibly distressing. The effect of a bomb is to make identification sometimes very, very hard and harrowing. There is now a process in place, involving a group chaired by the coroner, which will, in each case, make a definitive pronouncement once the right procedures are gone through. I wish it could be quicker but I think the only wise course is to follow precisely the advice of coroner and police and that is what we will do.
	At some time, and in consultation with the families, we will be ready to join in arrangements for a memorial service for the victims. Her Majesty the Queen has kindly said she will attend. Two minutes' silence will be held at noon on Thursday. This will be an opportunity for the nation to unite in remembrance.
	There is then the issue of further anti-terrorist legislation. During the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism Act earlier this year we pledged to introduce a further counter-terrorism Bill later in this session. That remains our intention. It will give us an opportunity, in close consultation with the police and the agencies, to see whether there are additional powers that they might need to prevent further attacks.
	As to timing, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pledged to publish the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the autumn with introduction in spring 2006, so that Parliament had time to digest the report on the operation of control orders, produced by the independent reviewer, Lord Carlile. I do not currently see any reason to depart from that timetable.However, that is subject to an important caveat. If, as the fuller picture about these incidents emerges and the investigation proceeds, it becomes clear that there are powers that the police and intelligence agencies need immediately to combat terrorism, it is plainly sensible to reserve the right to return to Parliament with an accelerated timetable.
	Finally, I would like to record our deep appreciation of the huge outpouring of international support for London and for Britain over these past days. The G8 leaders demonstrated complete solidarity and also commented, with an awe that gave me a lot of pride in Britain, on the courage of our capital city and its people. The UN Security Council passed a unanimous resolution of condemnation of the terrorists and support for Britain. The International Olympic Committee sent a resolution of support. Messages have been received worldwide. There have been immediate offers of help from all the world's main intelligence agencies and an emergency meeting of the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council will take place later this week.
	Mr. Speaker, 7 July will always be remembered as a day of terrible sadness for our country and for London. Yet it is true that, just four days later, London's buses, trains and as much of its underground as possible are back on normal schedules; its businesses, shops and schools are open; its millions of people are coming to work with a steely determination that is genuinely remarkable.
	Yesterday we celebrated the heroism of world war two, including the civilian heroes of London's blitz. Today, what a different city London isa city of many cultures, faiths and races, hardly recognisable from the London of 1945. It is so different and yet, in the face of this attack, there is something wonderfully familiar in the confident spirit that moves throughout the city, enabling it to take the blow but still not flinch from reasserting its will to triumph over adversity. Britain may be different today, but the coming together and the character are still the same.
	I say to our Muslim community that people know full well that the overwhelming majority of Muslims stand four square with every other community in Britain. We were proud of your contribution to Britain before last Thursday, and we remain proud of it today. Fanaticism is not a state of religion, but a state of mind. We will work with you to make the moderate and true voice of Islam heard as it should be.
	Together, we will ensure that, though terrorists can kill, they will never destroy the way of life that we share and value, which we will defend with such strength of belief and conviction that it will be to us and not to the terrorists that victory will belong.

Michael Howard: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. I want to begin by paying tribute to him for the calm, resolute and statesmanlike way in which the Government responded to last Thursday's attack on our capital city, on our citizens and on our way of life. The Prime Minister has movingly articulated the profound sorrow that we all feel following this atrocity. On behalf of all my colleagues, I want to join the Prime Minister in extending our deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those who have lost their lives. Nothing will make up for their loss. We share the grief of those who were nearest and dearest to them and we mourn with them. We feel also for those who have been injured and wish them a full and speedy recovery. I welcome what the Prime Minister said about the help given to the families that have been so dreadfully affected.
	The faceless killers behind last Thursday's attack brought death and tragedy to many innocent families. They have tried with the fires of hate to destroy the bonds of love. Yet since their attack, we have seen compassion and self-sacrifice prove themselves stronger than fanaticism and evil. The emergency services, the police, the ambulance service, paramedics, firefighters, doctors and nurses, as well as the bus drivers and the tube workers have all shown quite exemplary dedication. They have been joined by many others in the rescue operation. Those people have had to carry out, and are still carrying out, some dreadful work in what are often horrific conditions and they have responded with a professionalism that has won praise the world over.
	This single act of evil has inspired numerous acts of private heroismfrom the bus drivers who carried on their work on a day of fear and mourning to the charity workers, like the Salvation Army and the others to which the Prime Minister referred, who brought comfort to the grieving and offered a listening ear to the bereaved. Thousands played a notable part in the events of a terrible day. We all have cause to feel pride in the response of our fellow citizens. Any who doubted that, 60 years on, this generation of Britons had retained the resolve to stand united against the threats we face have found their answer.
	Although those who perpetrated last Thursday's outrage may think that they succeeded in their aims, they failed to achieve what they would have wanted most. They failed to cause panic in our capital city. Instead, we went about our business, determined to show that we would not be defeated. They failed to undermine the institutions, the democracy and the values of which we are all so justly proud. Instead, our Government, our citizens and our way of life proved once again resilient in the face of evil. And the terrorists failed to divide us, one from another. They failed to incite one group in our national community to blame another. The very societymultifaith and multiculturalthat stands as an affront to the warped ideology of the terrorists is a source not of weakness, as they suppose, but of strength. In our great capital city and beyond, the terrorists have united Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, those of all faiths and those of none in our contempt for those who want to destroy that diversity and our democratic and liberal way of life.
	It is clear that one of the challenges now will be to achieve the right balance between that liberalism and the security that we all want. The security services in Britain are some of the finest in the world. They are, alas, very experienced in dealing with the threat of terrorism. We know that they have thwarted recent attempts to attack our nation, and we appreciate that it is in the nature of their work that we cannot be aware of all they have done to protect us.
	I should like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister and to the Government for all their efforts since 11 September to safeguard this country from terror. I know how heavy that responsibility is, and I understand the difficulty of the decisions that Ministers must take when they are given information about threats that, by their very nature, cannot be openly broadcast. I assure the Prime Minister that we Conservatives wish to give the Government our full support as they face difficult decisions in future. We wish to play our part by making constructive suggestions that we hope will help establish a durable consensus on the best measures to safeguard us all.
	Now is not the time for a discussion on detail. What I do hope, however, is that in the weeks ahead we can all gain from a sober assessment of the systems that we have put in place to deal with the terrorist threat. I have no doubt at all that the Prime Minister wishes to learn all the appropriate lessons that can be learned. We emphatically do not believe that after Thursday's events there is any place for finger pointing or for the allocation of blame. There is only one group of people who should be blamed, and that is the evil terrorists who carried out the deed.
	We are all in this together. In due course, I believe that we may be able together to identify even better ways of providing the security our citizens deserve. A limited inquiry could in due course provide a calm and dispassionate forum for learning appropriate ideas, helping to quell unhelpful speculation and equipping us to respond even better in future. Its precise form would, rightly, be a judgment for the Government. We have no preconceived ideas about its timing or composition, and of course we recognise that nothing should be done to distract the police or the security services from the immediate task in hand, which is to bring to justice the perpetrators of last week's atrocity. We wish only to identify how best we can provide our police and our security services with the support they deserve in future.
	The eyes of the world were on London last Wednesday for the best of reasons. They were drawn to our capital city again on Thursday by scenes of unimaginable horror. But our citizens and our Government have responded in a way of which we can all be proud. In the days ahead, that spirit of defiance, resolution and determination should not be lost. We owe it to the victims of last Thursday's bombs to remember that terrorists should never profit from their embrace of evil.

Tony Blair: First, let me thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman very much, not only for his words today, but for demonstrating such unity and dignity in the face of such evil. That is an important message to send out from this country. The fact that he has responded in that way is another reason why we will succeed and the terrorists will fail. I thank him for that most sincerely.
	I entirely agree with the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made and I just want to make one point. It is important, if we possibly can, that when we come to look at any future legislation, we try to establish it on the basis of a consensus. If it is possible to do that, we should, and I assure him that I will work to see that that is done. It may be easier in these circumstances, with everyone coming together with good will, to ensure that that is done.
	I certainly agree that we have to analyse carefully what can be learned from this. There may be ways that that can be done in the future. The priority at the moment, obviously, is not to do anything to distract from the job in hand, but we would be foolish if we were not continually assessing how we can make our provision work better. I think, too, that there are other things that we need to do when we look at co-operation internationally. We will look, together with other countries, at how we can improve that. It was very heartening to see the immediate response of virtually every major intelligence service in the world. They wanted to help and they are now helping. In the wake of something terrible such as these events, there is information that can come to light. There is much that we are doing, both within our intelligence services and in co-operation with others to work on that.
	I repeat my thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to his colleagues, who have behaved so well and demonstrated such necessary unity. It also brings a certain reassurance to our country in difficult times.

Charles Kennedy: May I associate entirely my right hon. and hon. Friends with the sentiments that we have just heard from both the leader of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister? May I express also our profound sympathies to those who have lost their lives or suffered injuryin many cases, serious injuryand to their families and friends? May I also express the wish that the perpetrators of the mass murder in our capital city a few days ago are hunted down by the relevant authorities and brought to justice, so that an example is shown not just within our own shores, but to the rest of the world, of the efficiency and dependability of the British system of justice in dealing with an outrage such as this?
	May I also pay tribute to the emergency services? Last Thursday, as we moved around the capital near some of the problem areas where the bombs went off, many of us were able to see the heroism of all involved, and not just in the immediate response, despite the terrible loss of life that was recorded. Heaven knows how much worse it would have been had the emergency services, on the hour and at the time, not been prepared in many casesas we know from the horrific accounts that have emergedto risk their own lives to save other lives.
	I also wish to pay tribute to the work of the security services. It is easyand we all hear it from time to time through the mass mediato criticise the security services. By definition and given the nature of their work, nine times out of 10 we never learn about the success stories. They may come to light, if at all, only years and years after some dreadful event has been successfully thwarted. Opposition party leaders have found it very helpful over the past few days to receive briefings from some of the Prime Minister's senior advisers. We very much appreciate that.
	I was glad that the Prime Minister, in his peroration, drew attention to the role of the Muslim community in our country. As he has reflected, last week was one of unbelievable contrasts for London. One of the many aspects that made London such an attractive and successful option for the Olympicsits multi-ethnic, multicultural diversity, which is in the main a cause for celebration not just for our country but worldwideequally makes it a magnet for people who want to perpetrate wicked deeds. Has the Prime Minister been able to hold any discussions with leaders of the Muslim community, who are, as he knows, deeply troubled and concerned about a spate of attacks on mosques in various parts of the country over the past few days? Will he again underscore the determination of all of us, as community representatives in the House, to emphasise that the overwhelming majority of those of Muslim faith in Britain completely condemn the people who commit deeds such as those perpetrated on communities in London?
	Does the Prime Minister agree that another image from yesterday was most encouraging? We saw our Church leaders standing shoulder to shoulder in Lambeth palace to make the point that, irrespective of faith, all right-thinking people of faith do not countenance in any way the desperate approach of those people, whoever they prove to be, who carry out bombing and terrorism.
	Even in these early days after the events, has the Prime Minister received further requests from the Metropolitan police for a strengthening of their numbers, given the sheer volume of assessment and sifting and revisiting of old evidence that they have to carry out? Would the Government look favourably on such a request?
	I very much welcome the Prime Minister's comments in reply to the leader of the Conservatives about the need for close consultation with the police and agencies, particularly where further legislation may be involved. Will that close consultation also involve the other political parties? As the Prime Minister knows, we have argued for the introduction of a new offence, acts preparatory to terrorism, and we would feed such suggestions constructively into such discussions.
	The Home Secretary will convene an important meeting in Brussels on Wednesday. Can the Prime Minister give a further indication of what the Government may be examining to widen the scope for access to e-mails and the role of the telecommunications agencies in that respect?
	A mature parliamentary democracy must react as exactly that in the light of such events. We have heard measured and determined statements from the Government and the Prime Minister over the past few days, and the whole country is grateful for that. As long as the Government continue to adopt that tone and approach, they deserve and will certainly receive wholehearted support.

Tony Blair: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his supportive remarks. I will deal briefly with the points he made.
	Obviously, I echo the right hon. Gentleman's thanks to the emergency services. I pay tribute to the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, and to Westminster city council. They helped enormously both in the arrangements for the emergency services and in dealing with the aftermath of the terrorist attack.
	There have been several meetings with leaders of the Muslim community and I am pleased with their response, which was immediate and definitive.
	The Metropolitan police will obviously have the resources they need. We shall discuss further legislation across political parties. The Home Secretary will meet his colleagues on Wednesday; there will be an open agenda, but they will obviously discuss how they can best co-operate in defeating terrorism.

Frank Dobson: My right hon. Friend will know that two of the bombs exploded in my constituency, and I am sure that he will join me in commending the good sense of the vast majority of local people of all colours, cultures and religions in the area for remaining united in the face of this calamity and in the face of a limited number of evil people who wish to exploit the situation by stirring up religious hatred; but may I, on behalf of my constituents, also raise a deeply felt concern of local people, firefighters and others in the emergency services about the future security around the King's Cross/ St. Pancras area? The London fire authority has been planning for some time to withdraw some fire engines from three local fire stationsEuston, Clerkenwell and Islingtonon the grounds that
	the current location of appliances does not relate to today's risks.
	Thursday clearly demonstrated that they do relate directly to today's risks. Will he join me in saying to the fire authority that there should be no sense of shame or embarrassment in learning from experience and reconsidering that proposal?

Tony Blair: First, I extend my sympathy to my right hon. Friend's constituents whose lives have been disrupted in this way. I am aware of the issue to do with the local firefighting resources around King's Cross and St. Pancras. I think that the best thing is to say that we will obviously consider any points made, and I will get back to him.

Mark Field: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. As the Member of Parliament for the constituency where the other two bombs, sadly, went off, I should also like entirely to endorse the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson). The Prime Minister was absolutely right in every particular, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear in his measured statement that we feel that this is not the time to rush in any way to judgment. Mindful, though, of the importance of maintaining the generally excellent relations between the different racial, ethnic and faith communities in our cities, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that all the UK's Muslim religious and community leaders take the initiative now to prevent any backlash by making public statements in their home towns unequivocally condemning the perpetrators of last Thursday's atrocities.

Tony Blair: Meetings are taking place between the Home Secretary and the leaders of the community, and other members of the Government are meeting members of the community. Obviously, Downing street has been in contact with them, too. I have to say that there is no difficulty whatever in stating unequivocally that the vast majority of the Muslim community are completely condemnatory of those attacks and regard them as a betrayal of the true faith of Islam, and I am sure that that is right. Obviously, we will continue to get regular reports on community relations. It is remarkable, although I do not believe that it is surprising, that communities in London have not responded in a way that has divided people; on the contrary, they have been extremely unified in the response that they have made.

Mohammad Sarwar: Does the Prime Minister agree that last week's attacks on our great city of London were an attack on people of all faiths and communities? We stand united against the perpetrators of those evil, barbaric acts of terrorism. Can he assure me that the Government recognise that the overwhelming majority of the Muslims who live in this country are tolerant, law-abiding citizens who respect other religions and do not support terrorism? Can he assure me that the Government will do everything they can to prevent any backlash against Muslims?

Tony Blair: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend of that, and the whole House will agree with his sentiments, which come particularly strongly from him as, I think, the first Muslim MP in the House. I know that he speaks for the whole Muslim community, apart from a very small number of extremists, in this country.

Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree with me that great grief is never great at talking and that it is the silence noted by the tear in the eye, the lump in the throat and the pressure of hand upon hand that speaks volumes. I am sure today that we are proud of our country, in that there has been silence and not shouts. There has been quiet dignity and the strength of determination that a better day is coming for this country when we shall see the scourge of terrorism, from whatever source, cleaned from our ranks and people.
	I pay tribute to Her Majesty the Queen. Whatever our views may be, I am sure that there is unity around the monarch at a time like this. I was thrilled to see the crowds that came and said to the terrorists, We don't care about your threats. We're going to demonstrate where our loyalty lies. That needs to be emphasised.
	May I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the words of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to the Prime Minister? We pay tribute to the Prime Minister as well. He had a hard week, flying here, there and everywhere. He had good days, but very grim and sad days, and the whole country can salute him today and thank him for his guidance.

Tony Blair: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for those kind words. I echo entirely his sentiments about Her Majesty the Queen. His feeling of solidarity with the victims of terrorism is obviously especially powerful as it comes from him and his colleagues, who lived for so long with the threat of terrorism. I thank him for that very much.

David Winnick: Is it not of interest that some of the people who blame Government policies for what the murderous psychopaths did last Thursday are, in some instances, the very people who opposed military action in Kosovo to stop the ethnic cleansing of Muslims and, even more so, the liberation of Kuwait, which was 85 per cent. Muslim, from enemy occupation 14 years ago? Is it not rather important that the people to whom I am referringwe know that there are one or two in the House from a speech made last Thursdayshould stop making excuses for the mass murderers, whose hatred of humanity is no less than the Nazis'?

Tony Blair: Obviously I agree with what my hon. Friend says. It is worth pointing out that 11 September happened in 2001before any of the military action. Many people are killed by the same type of terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan when they try to exercise their democratic rights there.

Jacqui Lait: The Prime Minister will know that the whole House supports the counselling and support services that have been set up to help the families of the bereaved and the injured. Many of our constituents who work in the emergency and transport services will still be involved in the rescue and many will have complex and long-term reactions to the horror of the occasion. Can he assure me that proper counselling and support services will be available to all those people, whenever they are needed, so that we can ensure that our constituents get the best possible treatment that they need, too?

Tony Blair: Yes, I can give that assurance. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That was one of the things that we discussed at our meeting earlier today. It is essential that we keep the support there for as long as the families need it.

Gisela Stuart: I am grateful for the Prime Minister's reassurance that the families' support will continue. May I further ask him to continue supporting and working with bereavement charities such as Cruse, which have played a crucial role after disasters both here and abroad?

Tony Blair: Yes, I assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything that we can to continue working with the charities that do such an excellent job in that area.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I, as a London MP, join my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition in passing compliments to the Prime Minister for his behaviour at the time of the explosion? Had I been in that position, I would have behaved in no other way at all, so I pass him my compliments directly for his behaviour and for uniting us and giving us real focus. May I also join with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who pointed out that those who have spent the past three days trying to divide us by blaming everyone for the reasons behind this were not only wrong, but shameful? The best answer to them was to be found in constituencies such as mine on Saturday and Sunday. There were wonderful crowds who gathered on Sunday to show the terrorists what they thought of them. They do not care about the terrorists; they care about peace. I and my constituents promise the Prime Minister and the Government that we will do our level best to back him in whatever he does to find these people.

Tony Blair: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much indeed for that.

Tony Wright: As one of those who opposed the military action in Iraq, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that those who have been arguing over the past few days that what happened took place only because of that action are talking not only nonsense but dangerous nonsense? We are dealing with a group of Islamo-fascists who are against any form of democratic politics, and on that we should all be united.

Tony Blair: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I thank him for those words.

Gerald Howarth: The Prime Minister said earlier that it seems probable that the attack was carried out by Islamist extremist terrorists. He will be aware of the remarks over the weekend by the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, now Lord Stevens, who suggested that about 3,000 young home-grown people in this country are prepared to undertake the sort of terrorist activity, in the name of religion, that we saw last week. What plans do the Government have to rid this country of some of the extremist clerics who, when they are not fanning the flames of fundamentalism, are preaching sedition throughout this country?

Tony Blair: We need to look carefully at those who are inciting such hatred in our community. That is something that we should consider over the next few months as we consider what the right response throughout the country to the attack is. As for the numbers of those who are engaged in this type of extremism, it is difficult to judge. I recall that a few months ago when I suggested that there might be several hundred such people that the security services were looking at, there were people rather questioning of that. It is difficult to be accurate. It is difficult as well when those who are engaged in these attacks were born and bred in this country. I chose my words carefully because I think that, until we can provide some more definitive information as to who exactly was behind these attacks and their identity, it is as well to proceed with some caution. At present, I am not in a position to say definitively exactly who they were and whether they were people from this country or from outside.

John Denham: I endorse everything that my right hon. Friend has said about the position and the views of the Muslim community in this country. The number of those who would actively support or even apologise for the action is tiny, but it is the case that we can never give up on the battle for every heart and mind. In the weeks and months ahead, will my right hon. Friend, working with the leaders of the Muslim community, consider ways in which the Government can give every support to members of that community in every school, every college, every prison and every community, to ensure that there is no young person whose heart and mind we do not aim to win?

Tony Blair: I think that my right hon. Friend is right. Obviously there is a limit to what we can do by conventional methods of security, although it is absolutely necessary to do everything that we can. As my right hon. Friend says, it is also a battle for hearts and minds. There is no doubt about that. This type of extremism that preys on a warped and perverted view of Islam does not have its roots here but in different parts of the world. None the less, it can spread its hateful doctrines elsewhere. I know that there are many people within the world of Islam who are looking at how moderate, sensible and true Muslims can rise up against this extremism and defeat it. In the end, part of the answer can come only from within.

Alex Salmond: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru may I offer condolences to the relatives of people who died, who are missing, or who are maimed as the result of Thursday's atrocity? I hope for swift and early justice for the perpetrators, only after which should any operational inquiry take place. I endorse the Prime Minister's remarks about the spirit of Londoners, the courage of the emergency services and the role of the Islamic community in our country. On Saturday, Mr. Berlusconi said:
	Even intelligence from other countries shows the three BsBush, Berlusconi and Blairare considered the most exposed to this type of risk.
	Has the Italian Prime Minister shared that intelligence information with our Prime Minister?

Tony Blair: No. The one thing that is obvious from the long list of countries that have been victims of this type of terrorism that I read out is that it does not discriminate greatly between individual items of policy. I am afraid that I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it is a form of terrorism aimed at our way of life, not at any particular Government or policy. If we retreated on one front, they would simply make us retreat on another, so the only way to deal with it is to stand up to it and defeat it.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Prime Minister aware that it seems that a significant number of people who lost their lives last Thursday came from Islington or worked there, as the tube line runs through the borough, as does the No. 30 bus route? Everyone in the borough condemns what happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Ms Thornberry) and I spent part of the weekend at the Muslim Welfare House in Finsbury Park, where there was complete condemnation of everything that happened, and full support for the police in trying to find the perpetrators of this outrage.
	Will my right hon. Friend be cautious about the introduction of further anti-terrorist legislation that might reduce co-operation between the many communities in London and the Metropolitan police, because that co-operation is important in isolating and catching the people who perpetrated carnage on the streets of London? Does he endorse the points made by the Mayor about the need for understanding the multicultural nature of London's life and, indeed, the multicultural nature of the victims of the terrible atrocity last Thursday?

Tony Blair: I endorse those comments completely, and I extend my sympathy and condolences to the families of any of my hon. Friend's constituents who may be victims of last Thursday's attacks. In respect of the legislation, it will be much easier if we can achieve some form of consensus. There is a balance to be struck, but it is sometimes difficult to strike it. My own view is that just using the normal processes of law will not be enough. On the other hand, we must be careful in whatever legislation we introduce that we do not traduce the very principles that we seek to uphold. That is the balance that we must try to strike, and I can only say that I will do my best to try to reach as broad a consensus as possible on any legislation that may be needed.

Patrick Cormack: My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly paid tribute to the Prime Minister's quiet and calm leadership, and recognised that the responsibility for legislation must rest with the Government. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister himself has talked about consensus, and did so again just now. Would he build on the consensus of the Lambeth declaration and the consensus exemplified in the House this afternoon by inviting the signatories to the Lambeth declaration, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and others to Downing street to discuss the next steps?

Tony Blair: I am certainly happy to consider that, yes.

Jeff Ennis: My right hon. Friend will know that there is intense speculation in the press that the bomb on the No. 30 bus was triggered by a suicide bomber. Can the Prime Minister clarify that specific point for the House; and does he have any information at this point in time about how the bombs were triggered on the underground?

Tony Blair: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I think the best thing at the present time is to leave to the police any statements in relation to that. I know they will give as much information as they think is sensible or responsible. It is important that we proceed in giving that information or speculating on it only when they want to do so.

Quentin Davies: The Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition have spoken movingly in the House this afternoon. I endorse what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said about Her Majesty. It is very good news that the major intelligence services in the world have offered their collaboration. Can we count on a corresponding degree of help from those and other countries in the matter of extradition, if we need it? Is the European common arrest warrant up and running now in the EU, and can it be counted on to work, if required, in the present situation?

Tony Blair: I am not sure exactly how that will work in the present situation. Perhaps I can correspond with the hon. Gentleman on that. Clearly, we want to make sure that we have the maximum opportunity to co-operate with other European countries. For various reasons to do with legal systems, not with political leadership, that co-operation has not always worked as well it should, including from us to other European countries. We need to consider that carefully, and I am sure the matter will be covered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his meeting on Wednesday.

Sadiq Khan: I stood in the Chamber on Wednesday and said how joyous and proud I was, as a lifelong Londoner, at my city's successful bid to host the Olympics in 2012. Does my right hon. Friend agree that today Londoners and the rest of the UK have even more reason to be proud of Londonersproud of the way heroic Londoners of all faiths, races and backgrounds, victims, survivors and passers-by, acted on Thursday; proud of the way ordinary courageous Londoners carried on with their business and stopped the criminals disrupting our life; proud of the way our Mayor and emergency services behaved on Thursday and onwards; and finally, proud of the way Londoners have come together to stop any individual or community being the victim of any misconceived backlash or reprisal?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

Susan Kramer: A few moments ago the Prime Minister gave great and well deserved praise to the emergency services. Does he agree that we also need to recognise the many ordinary staff on the London Underground who are not emergency workers and who, on Thursday last, before the emergency services could come, put themselves directly in danger to give immediate assistance to those who were caught in the carnage, and dealt with horrors that most of us in the Chamber will never see and hope never to see? Will he join me in congratulating London Resilience, which did so much of the planning that meant that the response was so effective and helped to reinforce the calm and composure of Londoners? Will he let the House know that there are books of condolence open at city hall, which many hon. Members and others may wish to sign?

Tony Blair: The hon. Lady is right. The books of condolence are there, and I hope that as many people as can get to sign them will do so. She is right, too, that the whole staff of the underground and the servicesthe hospital services and so onhave performed magnificently. I had an opportunity of meeting some of them on Friday, and they were remarkably strong about their experience. It is not just the emergency services that came on the sceneobviously, there are people at hospitals and elsewhere who are having to cope with an extremely difficult situation, and of course there are the people still engaged in the forensic work, and a very harrowing and difficult time it must be for them.

Mark Durkan: May I join the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland, in sharing the sense of hurt and horror at Thursday's events? One does not need to be a Briton or a Londoner to feel the effects and to feel the pain that the people of London felt. One does not need to be a Briton or a Londoner to salute the character and the calibre of the response from the city of London and its public services. I join so many others in the House in paying tribute to the resolve and resilience of the Prime Minister in the face of the threat. Does he agree that it is that blend of sense, strength and sensitivity that he has shown and which has been shown by many Members in the House today that needs to inform what we do in the future? Any decisions that we make and any points that we make, from whatever part of the House, must not give any succour or satisfaction to those who had an agenda on Thursday. They may not have been able to calculate the exact body count that they would get on Thursday, but they calculated that there would be other, wider fallout. No matter what policy differences we have on other issues, it is important that all of us are diligent enough to deny them their agenda.

Tony Blair: I thank my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right in what he says about the right response to make. Coming from someone in Northern Ireland who has had to live his own politics with the possibility of violence and terrorism against his political party, his words are wise words that we should heed.

G8

Tony Blair: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G8 summit which I chaired at Gleneagles last week.
	There were two major issues on the agenda for this summitAfrica and climate change. Those subjects were chosen because they represent huge problems for the world which require concerted action by the international community. Africa is the only continent in the world that, without change, will not meet any of the millennium development goals. Although there are success stories in Africa, 4 million children under five die in Africa every year, 3,000 children a day die from malaria, and 50 million African children do not go to primary school. Life expectancy is plummeting, and by 2010 it will be down to just 27 years in some African countries. So Africa is an immediate moral cause that commands our attention.
	Climate change is perhaps the most long-term serious threat to our environment. Already sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk by 1 million sq km, the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1991, and sea levels arerising. Until now, however, the international community has been divided, with no agreement on the nature or urgency of the problem, what to do about it, or how to start a discussion that would involve the United States and key emerging economies such as India and China.
	The Commission for Africa, which I established last year, set out a comprehensive plan for dealing with the continent's problems. At Gleneagles, we agreed a doubling of aid for Africathat is, an extra $25 billion a year by 2010as part of an overall increase of $50 billion for all developing countries, which will start to flow immediately. That was made possible by a series of new pledges by G8 partners in the weeks before the summitnotably, the European Union's aid increase of an extra $38 billion, the American and Canadian decisions to double aid to Africa, and Japan's pledge, at the summit, of an additional $10 billion over the next five years. That is a mighty achievement, not only for the summit but for the millions of decent people world wide who have campaigned so long and hard on this issue. I should like to thank not only fellow leaders but my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary and, most particularly, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for their work in securing this.
	In addition, again thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we agreed to cancel 100 per cent. of the multilateral debts of the heavily indebted poor countries. That could amount in total to some $55 billion of relief. We also agreed a special package of debt cancellation for Nigeria worth around $17 billion.
	The G8 put particular emphasis on health and education in Africa. We agreed free primary education and basic health care for all, and we agreed these specific measures: on HIV/AIDS, to provide as close as possible to universal access to treatment by 2010; on malaria, to reach 85 per cent. of the vulnerable with bed nets and drugs in order to save around 600,000 children's lives a year by 2015; and on polio, the UK has agreed the funding to eradicate polio this year, and the G8 has agreed to ensure that the programme is fully funded in the years ahead.
	However, that help will not make a difference unless we also take action to end conflict and create conditions of stability. That means, above all, supporting the African Union's ability to deploy its forces to prevent and resolve conflict. We confirmed our commitment to train and equip 75,000 troops by 2010, mainly for Africa, including for the 20,000-strong African Union stand-by force.
	On trade, we agreed that we should establish a credible end date for agricultural export subsidies. The British Government want the Hong Kong world trade ministerial meeting to agree to an end date of 2010. I believe, on the basis of my discussions last week, that that is possible. We also agreed at Gleneagles concrete measures to build Africa's capacity to trade and recognised poor countries' need to determine their own economic and trade policies.
	It was the most detailed and ambitious package for Africa ever agreed by the G8. However, none of it can be implemented or improve the lives of African citizens without significant improvements in standards of governance, transparency and accountability. It is a partnership, not an act of charity. In the end, only Africans can lead and shape Africa. We can help, but every Government in Africa who betrays the principles of good governance betrays Africa. The G8 unanimously deplored recent developments in Zimbabwe. The United Nations Secretary-General told us that his envoy, Anna Tibaijuka, will report back to the UN Security Council in days.
	The summit of itself cannot end poverty in Africa but it should mark a turning point. I pay tribute to the organisations around the world whose members care passionately about Africa and who made their voice heard to the G8 leaders in the run-up to Gleneagles. It was a remarkable and brilliantly led campaign by people who have long demonstrated their commitment, and I particularly praise the contribution of Make Poverty History and the organisers of Live 8. Faith groups, schools, businesses and many millions of concerned people attached to no formal organisation made their demands, protested for them reasonably and gave political leaders the support that they needed to turn a campaign into a victory.
	In respect of climate change, our discussion included the leaders of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico. We were able to do four things. First, we agreed that climate change was a problem, with human activity contributing to it. Secondly, we agreed that we had to tackle it with urgency. Thirdly, we agreed that, to do that, we have to slow down, stop and, in time, reverse greenhouse gas emissions. Gleneagles adopted an action plan to exploit cleaner technologies that meet our energy needs and safeguard the climate, including measures to develop technologies such as bioenergy and cleaner coal, to promote energy efficiency and finance investment in clean technologies in emerging economies.
	Fourthly, we put in place a new dialogue involving the G8, the emerging economies and the key international institutions. The purpose is to create a pathway to a post-Kyoto agreement, so that when Kyoto expires after 2012, the world can act with unity. The new dialogue between the G8 plus the five and others will have its first meeting in the UK in November.
	The G8 also gave its strong support to the middle east peace process and pledged its support for a package of assistance worth up to $3 billion a year for Palestine. We gave warm backing to the mission of Jim Wolfensohn, the Quartet's envoy for disengagement, who reported to us at the summit. I continue to believe that progress in the middle east between Israelis and Palestinians is an enormous part of creating a fairer and more secure world.
	Inevitably, some will be disappointed with aspects of the G8 summit. However, on any realistic basis, on the two hardest issues on the international agenda, there was progress, and in the case of Africa, immense progress. We now have to build on that, using our EU presidency, the UN summit in September and the Hong Kong ministerial meeting on trade in December.
	Of course, the task is now to implement what has been agreed. However, let us for a moment assume that we can. If we do so, millions of children will not die when otherwise they would have died. Africa will change its destiny from one of decline to advance. The values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law will be strengthened further still. On the environment, if we can implement what is agreed, today's largest economy can achieve agreement with the largest economies of tomorrow to get the framework, technology and policy in place to reverse the threat of global warming.
	Such progress, if achieved, would be the most poignant and powerful riposte to the forces of terrorism.

Michael Howard: This is an afternoon for consensus; we might be in danger of setting an entirely new trend. I congratulate the Prime Minister on what he achieved at the G8 summit. Although it was overshadowed by the atrocity in London, substantial progress was made there. That was in large measure due to the work done by the Prime Minister and others, not only at Gleneagles but in the run-up to the conference.
	At Gleneagles, the Prime Minister was fighting for policies and principles that are widely shared across the country. The success of Live 8 and the work of the Make Poverty History campaign have played their part in focusing world attention on these issues, and the Prime Minister's response was entirely appropriate and welcome. Of course international summits, by their very nature, cannot live up to all the hopes invested in them. The Prime Minister has accepted that he did not achieve everything that he wanted to achieve, but the agreements on world poverty and on climate change hold out the prospect of further advances later this year.
	We all know what is at stake. In Africa, 8,000 people die every day from HIV/AIDS, while 7,000 die from hunger and 6,000 die from waterborne diseases. These are people who share this planet with us, and we have a moral, as well as a practical, imperative to help them. That is why we welcome the agreements that were reached on aid and on debt relief. We wholeheartedly support the Government's position on both those issues. Will the Prime Minister tell us, however, what proportion of the aid is new money? Will he also say more about the timing of the aid? How much will be delivered immediately and how much in the latter half of the decade? There is also cross-party support for the international finance facility, including the IFF for immunisation. The communiqu is very non-committal on that issue, however. Will the Prime Minister tell us what prospects there are for further agreement on that proposal?
	I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree that aid and debt relief are only part of the package that will help Africa to secure a permanent escape from poverty. We all recognise the need to make progress in securing free and fair trade. Protectionism by developed countries at the expense of the developing world is immoral and hypocritical, and it must come to an end. The key meeting on that issue will be the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Hong Kong later this year, and one of the key issues at that meeting will be the removal of export subsidies by the developed countries. Progress was made on that issue at Gleneagles, but no date was set. The Prime Minister has set out his objective for Hong Kong. Will he give us a fuller assessment of the likelihood of progress in that regard?
	The communiqu made clear the G8's commitment to strengthening the multilateral trading system and improving the participation of developing countries. The Prime Minister will be aware of our proposals for an advocacy fund, which would help developing countries to make the most of the opportunities that will be made available to them in Hong Kong. Even if the Prime Minister does not accept that specific proposal, will he assure me that he will examine additional alternative means of achieving that goal?
	We welcome the fact that the G8 deplores recent developments in Zimbabwe. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what discussions he had with President Mbeki, who is in a better position than anyone to take action to bring to an end the suffering in that troubled land?
	On climate change, as on world poverty, we support the Government's overall approach. I recognise that it took political courage to put climate change on the agenda at a G8 summit, given the lack of consensus on how to proceed. The Prime Minister has made progress, but not as much as we all would have liked. The challenge at Gleneagles was not necessarily to agree on a series of new targets there and then, but to provide the impetus for an agreement of that kind that would bind in the United States, China and India as well as the Kyoto signatories. How do the Government intend to achieve that through the dialogue that will now take such matters forward? Will the Prime Minister tell us which other interested countries will be invited to join that dialogue, and when in the second half of the year he proposes to hold meetings to make progress on that agenda? Can he also clarify the purpose of the United Kingdom's international conference in November? Does he envisage that that meeting will lead to binding commitments on the participants, particularly with regard to the plan of action?
	We welcome the communiqu's emphasis on the need to invest in and share clean energy technologies. Does the plan of action guarantee new funding for the development of such technologies? If not, can the Prime Minister give us his assessment of the prospects for securing such funding during the remainder of Britain's G8 presidency?
	Climate change is undoubtedly one of the most important challenges facing the world today, and it is essential that it does not drop down the agenda for the remainder of this year and beyond. With Britain having secured a lasting legacy from its G8 presidency on aid and debt, is not it essential that we work to secure a lasting legacy on trade and climate change, too?
	The test of the G8 was to provide an impetus that would increase the prospects of a successful outcome in both Montreal and Hong Kong. Last week's summit has certainly moved us in the right direction, but does the Prime Minister agree that the real test of success will come in Hong Kong and Montreal?

Tony Blair: Again, let me thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his broad agreement with what we have tried to achieve and what we did achieve at the G8. This has been a day for consensus, but I am sure that we can find many areas on which to disagree if we think hard enough in the time to come.
	On aid and debt relief, in respect of the new money aspect, I am somewhat puzzled by some of the people who have been claiming that it is all recycled money. It is absolutely clear to me that the EU commitment is additional, the Japanese commitment is definitely additional, and as far as I am aware, Canada and the US are agreeing to double their aid from their present position. Although people keep saying that there is an issue about whether it is new money, it seems to me certainly true that it is, at least the vast bulk of it.
	In respect of timing, the aid and debt relief can start to flow straightawayand should do so. Some aspects, such as the international finance facility, will take some   time to establish, although in respect of the immunisation programme, for example, people are making a start now on financing in an innovative way. We can therefore start to see the benefits soon, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says, it is absolutely urgent.
	In respect of trade, I would like the 2010 date to be reached in Hong Kong in December. Whether we can do so, I do not know. President Bush indicated that he would support 2010. I understand and accept that some people felt it was important that whatever dates were given were given in the context of the trade round and that we should not try to overlay a G8 process on a WTO process. I understand that, but it should not prevent us from having a forward position, which is absolutely necessary for the poorest countries. In the communiqu, we specifically indicated the importance of building the trade capacity of those countries, which in a sense is the same idea as is behind the advocacy fund.
	I totally agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about Zimbabwe. Obviously, I discussed the matter with President Mbeki and Kofi Annan. There will be an opportunity when the report from the United Nations envoy is received by the UN Security Council.
	Let me be clear about what the problem always is in dealing with Zimbabwe. Although there is no dispute, in any quarter of the House, about the abhorrence that we feel for what is happening in Zimbabwe, once one gets past the expression of abhorrence, the question is: what do we do? The truth is that it is clear that the matter is best dealt with through the United Nations and through putting pressure on those countries in the immediate vicinity. We will continue to do that in any way that we can, and to get anything else that we can in terms of EU or UN measures or sanctions. The only way that the situation in Zimbabwe will come to an end, however, is through concerted international action, particularly from those countries neighbouring Zimbabwe. I confess that, although I suppose I understand what causes the reluctance, I cannot really excuse it, and I cannot understand why it should continue, given the evidence of what has happened to what is, after all, potentially a wealthy country. That is the terrible tragedy. I think that we are agreed on that.
	I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he said about climate change. He is absolutely right. Part of the trouble is that people will say we have not achieved what we never set out to achieve. There was no way in which we could negotiate new climate change agreements or targets here. We need to peel away some of the rhetoric on climate change. Let us be clear: there is no way in which climate change will ever be dealt with without agreement between the United States, China and Indiaand the European Union, obviously. Without those three countries it will not happen. In the years ahead, the huge consumers of energy will be China and India, and they are willing to join a dialogue, and so is America.
	People claim that it is wrong to say that technology is the answer. It is wrong to say that technology can do what is necessary by itself, but it is not wrong to say that technology is the essential part of the process. We need to develop a framework of incentives that allows the technologies to be developed. I hope that, through the dialogue, we will secure a report on the action plan from Gleneaglesthat is obviously importantas well as exchanges of information leading eventually, I hope, to an agreement on technology transfer between the United States, the other wealthy countries, and China and India. China is building power stations at the rate ofI do not know[Hon. Members: One a week.] One a week. People can say what they like about the United States of America, but unless we can achieve a clean development of that technology it will not really make a difference.
	Russia has agreed to put the issue on the agenda for next year, but Japan has agreed to make it one of the centrepieces of its G8 summit in 2008. We need to develop the dialogue so thatthis is crucialwhen the Kyoto target period ends in 2012, the world is in agreement again, with radical measures that can be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly.
	As for the funding of technologies, again I agree, but it is worth pointing out that the United States of America invests more in clean technology research and development than all the other countries in the world put together. We need to do more, but it is worth pointing that out.

Charles Kennedy: The Prime Minister is undoubtedly to be congratulated on what was, for the best and happiest of reasons as well as for the most dreadful, an extraordinary week. It was a considerable achievement to produce a coherent communiqu from the G8 members, given everything else that properly demanded his attention and presence.
	It has been said by many, but cannot be said often enough, that the approach of those making perfectly legitimate points about the G8the Make Poverty History campaigners and those involved in Live 8 as well as the leaders themselveswas in such moral contrast to the scenes that we witnessed in London that it will stand the test of history. It will be seen as the way in which to go about things, both by decision-makers and by citizens around the globe seeking, properly and legitimately, to influence those decision-makers.
	Does the Prime Minister accept that the agreements reached by the G8 countries at Gleneagles will be judged not on the basis of promises made, but on the basis of the promises that are fulfilled in the months and years to come? The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say in the context of Africaand we have supported him throughoutthat many of the initiatives rely heavily on the willingness of African leaders to root out corruption and improve governance on their own continent and in their own countries. That is, of course, vital. As the G8 rolls on year after year, however, it is also important for us to have mechanisms ensuring that all its members fulfil the pledges into which they so willingly enter in a rather public way, as they did at the end of the Gleneagles summit by putting their signatures on the documents in front of the cameras.
	The Prime Minister said a few moments ago that, so far as EU finances were concerned, British contributions definitely constituted new additional money, but perhaps he could be a bit more specific about the UK context. Will any new funds for the commitments given be drawn from the Department for International Development's existing budget, or will all such funds be supplementary to it? As the Prime Minister knows, this remains an abiding source of interest and legitimate concern to many of those who follow DFID's work in detail.
	I also welcome the $3 billion-worth of aid pledged to the Palestinian Authority. That far-sighted move is good news that surely must command not only cross-party support in our country, but broad international support. Were any conditions placed on this aid package so far as the Palestinian Authority are concerned, and was it possibleeither formally or in the margins of the G8to discuss advancing the road map and the way forward?
	On trade and the elimination of subsidies, how does the Prime Minister intend to progress that part of the agenda? Can he explain the disjunction between the agreemententered into in principle at Gleneaglesto attack agricultural subsidies in the west, and the parallel universe of the simultaneous lack of progress in the WTO trade talks, which are under way in Geneva? The Prime Minister will accept that that disjunction presents a real difficulty.
	Finally, it is significantindeed, it reflects the balance of the package that emerged from Gleneaglesthat the section of the Prime Minister's statement devoted to the all-important issue of climate change was significantly shorter than the sections devoted to other headline matters discussed at the G8. Does he agreehe has more than alluded to this point this afternoonthat the Gleneagles agreements on climate change, in so far as they exist, constitute little more than treading water, and that we will not achieve real success until we have a concrete, target-based, country-based successor to the Kyoto process? He spoke of a pathway and the leader of the Conservatives spoke of impetus and dialoguethe other buzzwords of communiqus and statements during, and concerning, the summit. Were any specific steps actually agreed at Gleneagles to reduce emissions, because that is the bottom line?
	Earlier in the year, the Prime Minister set out three tests for the success of his G8 presidencyand fairly soin addressing climate change: agreement on the basic science; agreement on the process to speed up provision of the technology necessary to meet the threat; and engagement with other countries with growing energy needs, China and India being the most obvious and notable examples. He has mentioned this issue already, but now that he has got through this amazing week, culminating in the summit's conclusion, it would be interesting to hear the answer to the following question, which I ask in no sense pejoratively. Following Gleneagles and thus far into his presidency, to what extent has he been able to meet the objective tests that he set himself, and does he agree that there is much further to go on climate change? As long as he keeps pressing that case, he deserves practical and political support.

Tony Blair: First, the right hon. Gentleman is right: the promises have got to be fulfilled. On the other hand, there is evidence that such measures are already working. For example, several hundred thousand people are getting relief from HIV/AIDS through the drugs currently going in. Such things can be done, that is for sure. There are countries that, as a result of debt relief, have been able to put their children into primary school education for the first time. Also represented at Gleneagles were the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the African Union, so there will be a lot of follow through. September's UN millennium summit will also focus greatly on these issues.
	On the new money, so far as we are concerned, the budget for the Department for International Development is rising. We are putting it up every yearit has risen dramaticallyand there is the international finance facility as well. For obvious reasons, because of what happened on Thursday, the announcement by Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi of $10 billion extra over the next five years is significant and would not have happened but for the focus of the G8 at that moment. I am not saying that it would not have been done later, but it was significant that it came then.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the Palestinian Authority. Disengagement will be very difficult for Israel, but it is important that there is support for the Palestinian Authority so that it can begin the basic structures of statehood after disengagement. We can then take that further, something I am sure President Bush is determined to do. We discussed the issue at length at Gleneagles.
	On trade, I have given the date of 2010. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a difference between what happened at Gleneagles and what is happening with the WTO, but that is not entirely fair. It is important to realise that what is holding up the WTO is not simply agricultural subsidieson the contrary, we think that we can get agreement on thoseand not simply G8 countries. It is important that we make sure that other countries recognise that they have a responsibility for this, not simply the G8. The head of the WTO was at Gleneagles and briefed us on the obstacles, which were not primarily G8 countries. It is important, of course, that we make a difference.
	On climate change, the right hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that we were simply treading water. I am not overselling this, but the position of the international community was that there was no agreement on the science, no agreement on the need to take action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, no agreement that we needed to act with urgency and no agreement on a process for going forward. The international community was, I am afraid, sundered on this issue.
	It is true that we have not made a new agreementthe G8 was never going to be able to do thatbut we should refer to the three things to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. We have no agreement on the basic science, but there is agreement for the first time that climate change is a reason for tackling the issue, as well as energy security and supply. There has been some coming together on that.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about action, and there is a plan of action, with measures concerning industry and energy efficiency. That is precisely the action to speed up the technology. Most important, there is an agreement on process. Let us be clear; there is a weakness with Kyoto. We support Kyoto and will meet our Kyoto targets; I am not sure how many other countries will. But the basic issue is the concern that as China, in particular, and India emerge strongly as economies, they will be competing with us economically. We must make sure that we bind them into the process, and they have agreed to be bound in.
	Part of America's concernwe accept that there have been disagreements over Kyoto and over the scienceis that other countries who have been happy to hide behind America in these matters should now share in the process. As those economies emerge and become immensely strong and powerful, there must be some common sharing of the problem. We are prepared to share the technology, which was one of the important things to come out of Gleneagles. But a situation in which there were tough targets for the developed world and no obligations on the developing world would be difficult to sell to our own people here. That is why I say that this is a pathway to a fresh agreement after Kyoto that will take us further than the right hon. Gentleman thought.

Robin Cook: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving a greater sense of purpose at this G8 summit than at any previous one that I can recall? Whatever criticism is now being made of the aid and debt package, is not the outcome a far better deal than anyone could have dared hope for only six months ago?
	On the issue of follow-through, Russia takes over the presidency next year and may not have our long experience and ties with Africa. Will my right hon. Friend consider what structures we could create within the G8 to maintain the momentum that he has started and to ensure that future summits review progress and commitments that will necessarily take some years to fulfil?

Tony Blair: I thank my right hon. Friend for his supportive statements. Yes, we certainly should consider what follow-up mechanisms are necessary. On climate change, it is clear that we will follow up, particularly given that the problem has been identified for the Japan summit of 2008. However, in co-operation with the UN, we must ensure that we also follow up in respect of Africa. If we reach this time next year and find that some of these great policies have not been pushed through, there will, quite rightly, be a great deal of cynicism. We must make sure that we push the policies forward.

Tony Baldry: On trade, President Bush has made it clear that he is prepared to reduce agricultural subsidies if the European Union also does so. What does the Prime Minister think about the French position on this matter? If the EU negotiates as one in respect of the WTO, we may move forward only at the slowest pace, so has the Prime Minister been able to make any progress with respect to the French position on this matter?

Tony Blair: We have agreed that we will set a credible end date. That includes the European Union position, which includes the French position. We have not actually set the date, but it has been agreed that such a date will be set and that substantial progress on this matter will have to be made at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting. I cannot be absolutely certain, but my sense is that we are on track to reach an agreement in 2010. The French position, to be fair, is that they are prepared to act if other countries are also prepared to act on their subsidies.

Michael Meacher: On aid and debt relief, the G8 summit was clearly an enormous success, for which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor both deserve huge credit. However, if we are to assist African development, is it not right for us to cancel debt unconditionally, rather than make it conditional on forcing some of the world's very poorest countries to open up their markets when, before they are able to build up their own industries, they are not remotely in a position to face the full force of international economic competition?
	If President Bush is still unwilling to take any serious meaningful action to combat climate change, should we not be doing far more to reach out to the large, growing and influential group of US political and industrial leaders who are prepared to tackle the problem? For example, there is the Republican governor of California, the Republican mayor of New York, the chief executive of General Electric and the mayors, I believe, of about 140 cities across the USall of whom have voluntarily decided to enforce carbon emission reductions within their own jurisdictions.

Tony Blair: I thank my right hon. Friend for his words. On trade, we are very clear in the communiqu that the opening of markets should be viewed from the point of view of the developing world as a process in which developing countries need to have the capacity to trade effectively. Free trade is in their interests in the end, but if it were to happen overnight without a proper process for those countries to engage in and to construct that necessary capacity, it would be difficult for them. That is one of the reasons why we have increased aidin order to allow them to try to achieve that. We also made the point that it is necessary for many of the African countries to try to break down the barriers of trade between themselves, as there are still major tariff barriers within Africa as well. We have taken my right hon. Friend's point well on board.
	As to climate change, the climate group that we have established does precisely what my right hon. Friend mentioned. It involves the state of California, businesses and other countries that share our perspective. In the end, it depends on what people want. I think that, if there is a willingnessand I think that there isfor the Administration to engage on this issue, we might as well engage them and see where we get to. We can pursue the other dimensions with the states, business and industry at the same time. It is important to remember, as I often say, that the Kyoto treaty was, unfortunately but truly, rejected by 100 to nothing in the US Senate under the previous American President. Sometimes people see the US Administration as the only issue in respect of this matter, but I think that it is possible to move the debate forward and our engagement with other groups and people in America is an important part of that.

Ian Paisley: The House has received this report with gratitude, because, after all the negative statements that were made, it is nice to know that positive steps are being taken on health and on poverty issues, especially in Africa. I put the question, however, of agricultural export subsidies. The Prime Minister needs to know that the farming community in Northern Ireland is an essential part of our economy. That community has had no real standard of farm income for a long time, and there is considerable worry in the hearts of those men that maybe this year, or perhaps 2010, will be their last. Will they be consulted and will they know what steps are being taken and what the future holds?

Tony Blair: This is obviously important. We need the farming community to be strong, and as the hon. Gentleman rightly says there is concern in Northern Ireland and elsewhere when people talk about phasing out subsidies. We have time to gear up for this, however, and it is important that we are in full consultation with the farming community about any decision that can be reached. I would say, too, that we can sometimes exaggerate the significance for the poorest countries, particularly in Africa, of the barriers we presently have on trade.

Gerald Kaufman: I applaud the $3 billion dollar package for the Palestinian Authority and my right hon. Friend's key role in helping to bring that about. Does he agree that, even so, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians will continue to live in poverty, deprivation and unemployment of third-world standards unless and until they can live in a free, independent and internationally recognised Palestine, and that pursuit of the road map is the key to achieving that?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. It is important that disengagement and the support for the Palestinians is the first step towards a final negotiated settlement and not seen as an end in itself.

Gary Streeter: I warmly welcome the extra money for Africa and agree with the Prime Minister that that must go hand in hand with improving governance in many African countries. Did he discuss with his G8 colleagues whether we in the west can do any more to underpin good governance in African countries by supporting democracy, the rule of law and the general thrust towards freedom? Is there room, perhaps, for an initiative along the lines of the one that America introduced in relation to the middle east?
	May I also thank the Prime Minister very much indeed for his leadership over the last few days?

Tony Blair: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
	We can provide help for democracy but should also make the important point to African countries, which I think a new generation of African leaders increasingly understands, that we could put all the aid in the world into Africa and it would make no difference unless it went into countries that had at least the beginnings of a proper judicial system, a proper commercial system, a proper fiscal system

Andrew Mitchell: Property rights.

Tony Blair: With property rights, and so on. That is very important. The lessons of what countries need to do to attract the right levels of private sector investment and so on are not hard to describe, even if it can be difficult to do. We can show how good governance has its own financial reward; without a shadow of a doubt, that is true. The other thing we can do, which we are working on with business, is the so-called extractive industries transparency initiative, which is to make sure that companies that pay money are open and transparent about the money so that we can root out the corruption that has bedevilled Africa for so long and that is so deeply unfair to its people. If we started to get the right systems of governance in place, the other thing that would happen is that the younger generation of highly talented Africans would want to stay to engage in the politics of their own country, which is tremendously important. Far too often, they have seen no future in that, and although international institutions benefit enormously from them, it would be better for their own countries if they were there.

Clive Efford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in terms of the agenda for the G8, the genie is out of the bottle in a way that it has never been before? Over the past few weeks, I have visited Willowdene and St. Thomas More primary schools, where the children have demanded education for children in the developing world, and St. Thomas More secondary school, which is setting up its own fair trade canteen that will sell only fair trade goods. That is a sustainable development that will help future generations to understand the agenda of the G8 and what needs to be done. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such initiatives place an obligation on the people who are charged with delivering the communiqus from the G8 and future summits to make the difference that people want?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right. It is inspiring to see how many schools have taken the issues up. Obviously people were watching Live 8 in large numbers because of the strength of the show, but it was clearly also a demonstration of support for certain ideals. I know, from the massive correspondence with schools up and down the country and in different parts of the world, that something has been generated that is very positive for the future.

David Curry: The Prime Minister wanted to get an end date for agricultural subsidies into the communiqu, but he was not able to do so. Does he now accept that the best way forward for agricultural change is through the WTO, or does he still intend to press for reform of the CAP during the British presidency? Is he aware that the New Zealand rapporteur of the agricultural text for the WTO has reported in the past few days how difficult it is to make progress? What can be done to keep people to that task and that deadline?

Tony Blair: I would have preferred the date to be in the communiqu, althoughto be fairI understand why other countries said that that was not appropriate, that the WTO was the right place for that and that it should happen in Hong Kong. Well, let us ensure that it does happen there. As for the CAP, over the longer term, it is important that we move the European budget away from the irrational amount of support for agriculture. It is important also to realise that the difficulties that have been mentioned over the past few days are not simply in respect of Europe, nor in respect of Europe and America.

Michael Clapham: May I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on the work that they have done, especially on Africa and trade? Will my right hon. Friend say more about the international financing arrangement? Is it intended that the promises that have been given for the future will be achieved more quickly through that arrangement? The international financing arrangement should mean that a uniformity of resource is available to bring about the changes my right hon. Friend intends much more quickly. Finally, can my right hon. Friend say whether the issue of the UN environmental programme was discussed, or is that an issue for the WTO agenda?

Tony Blair: On the last point

Michael Clapham: In relation to asbestos.

Tony Blair: Yes, I think that will be a UN process.
	My hon. Friend is right about the international finance facility. The purpose is to try to get aid moving more quickly. We will soon be able to finance the immunisation programme in that way, and that will be a huge advantage for many people in Africa.

Peter Ainsworth: The Prime Minister is to be warmly congratulated on having the courage to put climate change among his key issues. Nobody ever said that tackling climate change internationally would be an easy job, and I also understand that the key final negotiations took place on a particularly difficult day. However, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the result of the climate change negotiations is a bitter disappointment. Does the Prime Minister accept that, if we are to tackle climate change, we need an international coalition of the willing, and that, if the United States is not prepared to be willing, he may need to take a lead by building a consensus with other countries that are prepared to get on board? I am thinking in particular of India, China, Brazil and other emerging economies. Are there any circumstances in which he would envisage taking matters forward, perhaps on a temporary basis, without the United States?

Tony Blair: It is a bitter disappointment only if people had an unreasonable expectation of what we could do at Gleneagles. The problem that I am focusing on is this: it is all very well for people to say, What if America is not prepared to be part of the agreement?, but if America is not prepared to be part of an agreement post-Kyoto, China and India will be reluctant to enter consensus with others, except the type of consensus reached at Kyoto, which does not put strong obligations on powerful emerging economies. I regret to say that in my view there is no alternative to America and the major emerging economies being part of the consensus.
	What America is prepared to do is to act with others on the issue and it is prepared to recognise that such action needs to be urgent. As was said a moment or two ago, there is also gathering support in America for such an idea, which will impose its own pressures on the political system. Whether America is prepared to go further and agree a framework of targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is something we need to work on through the dialogue that we have set up. To do it in the way that I described is the right way. Although Kyoto was a remarkable achievement, part of the problem is that it is difficult for more than 100 countries to try to negotiate an international agreement. The truth is that 70 per cent. of the emissions come from the eight plus five countries. The sensible thing is to find a pathway to a new agreement and that is the biggest ambition that we could have at this stage. We have come from a situation where people did not even talk about the issue, never mind about resolving it, to an occasion where they are doing that, with at least some common principles of understanding about its urgency and importance.

Mark Durkan: The Prime Minister indicated that he sometimes wonders where questions about whether figures are being recycled and whether debt relief comes out of aid budgets come from. I reassure him that, although such questions may be asked often, they are not being asked against him. They arise not from unworthy cynicism but from a healthy scepticism that has, unfortunately, been born of much past experience of targets set and of commitments and promises made but not fulfilled. That is why people want to know what is happening, not just for themselves as interested citizens, but because they want to stand by our pledge to fellow world citizens in Africa.
	I join other Members in applauding all the efforts of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development in taking the issue forward. Will the Prime Minister assure us that his statement and the communiqu on Friday are merely punctuation marks in a story that will continue? Indeed, he has indicated that he will be taking the cause further during the EU presidency and in the trade round.
	In the context of the request of the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister examine alternatives to the advocacy fund, will the Prime Minister consider whether, in the build-up to the trade round, we could try to engineer an Africa impact assessment mechanism? That would mean that none of the developed nations in the world trade negotiations could ask for or agree to anything unless it was Africa-proofed.

Tony Blair: I am sure that that will be part of the discussions in the WTO round. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks in respect of myself and the Chancellor and the International Development Secretary who, as I said in my statement, have done an immense amount to bring the situation about.
	I do not take the healthy scepticism personally in any way. It is sensible for people to be sceptical, but it is also sensible that they recognise that, with the support they have mobilised, we now have the opportunity truly to make a difference, and I think it is possible to do so.

Michael Jack: The Prime Minister attached importance to the climate change action programme. May I ask him whether there was any agreement that those participating in that programme would in due course report back by objective means the progress that they make towards reducing their respective country's emissions of greenhouse gases? May I ask him to consider the possibility of creating some forum where parliamentarians from the eight plus five and other interested countries could meet together to take forward dialogue at that level, so that we may gain greater international understanding of some of these issues?

Tony Blair: On the latter point, that would be a sensible idea because it would help people understand what the real problems are. Part of what I have been implying throughout my observations todayI felt this even more strongly when I was with the leaders, discussing climate changeis that the politics of this are slightly different from the way that they are presented. There is a possibility of getting agreement between the eight plus five; what I think is impossibleI am very sure of this nowis to get an agreement that either excludes the eight or excludes the five.
	In respect of the objectivity of any assessment, it will happen, of course, in part through the UN framework because we have got the Montreal meeting coming up, but the reporting back both through the new dialogue mechanism that we have established and the summits in Russia in 2006 and in Japan in 2008 will be important opportunities for people to make an assessment of this. I think that people may be prepared to move further than is presently contemplated.

Harry Cohen: Credit to the Prime Minister and the Government on efforts made and progress achieved, but will the 2015 millennium goals be met by 2015 as a result of the conference? Will poverty be made history as a result of the summit? If not, when?

Tony Blair: If we deliver on what has been promised, yes, we can say that the millennium development goals will be met, but, obviously, we have got to deliver on it. We have got to carry it through and see it through, and so have the African countries got to deliver on their part of it as well. I emphasise, yet again, the importance of conflict resolutionthe urgent necessity of establishing a standby African force, large enough to go into any situation of conflict. We can see dramatically the importance of that from what is happening in Sudan, where there are now about 8,000 peacekeepers, but more are needed. If there was a 20,000 force able to move into those situations, it would make a tremendous difference. Again, whatever aid is put in, even whatever attempts by Governments are made to strengthen the systems of governance in those countries, if there are conflicts that ravage an entire country, all the progress is set back immediately.

Pete Wishart: Does the Prime Minister fully understand the disappointment felt by many non-governmental organisations, aid agencies and many campaigners who felt that he and other G8 leaders would be truly brave in tackling African poverty at the summit? In marks out of 10, how close does he think he and the G8 summit came to meeting the demands of the Make Poverty History campaign?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman's standing up reminds me of one thing that I omitted to do in my statement that I should have done: to thank the people of the area around Gleneagles for putting up with so much irritation and discomfort. [Interruption.] Chaos would be putting it a bit too high.

Patrick McLoughlin: Hassle.

Tony Blair: Hassle, certainly. They bore it with great fortitude. I should also like to thank the police as well for the work that they did in policing the summit, particularly when it is difficult because numbers of people come simply to cause trouble.
	I have done enough of these things now to realise that, if the standard is that we get universal acclamation from the NGOs that operate in certain areas, we might as well give up and go and do something else. That is not what is going to happen. However, the marks out of 10 that were given by some of the campaigners who have got the longest track record were pretty good. I think that we have made substantial progress, and it is in the nature of politics that substantial progress is the best that we can achieve. Most people, if they look at it fairly, would recognise that the G8 summit achieved a lot more than many previously.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on to the main business.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 3
	  
	Consequential Amendment: Powers of Arrest

'In section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) (arrest without warrant by persons other than constables) after subsection (4) add
	(5)   This section does not apply in relation to an offence under Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986..'.[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 23 [Schedule], at end insert
	'(4)   In subsection (3) at end insert but no power of arrest shall reside with any other person including any person empowered to do so by virtue of section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005..'.

Paul Goggins: It seems but a short time since we had what could be fairly described as a vigorous debate about the Bill in the Chamber. We hit calmer times in Committee and as we begin our debate today we are obviously in a calm mood for other reasons that we know about. We can also be calm because we have at last found common ground on which there can be clear agreement between the Government and the Opposition parties.
	New clause 3 addresses concerns expressed in Committee, not least by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and elsewhere that individuals could try to use the power of citizens arrest inappropriately and perhaps maliciously in relation to the new offence. The hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently about the fact that the police would be highly unlikely to charge into the middle of a meeting or a speech during which someone was taking action that could be deemed to be inciting hatred on the ground of religious belief. He suggested that if the police might be cautious, we should also be cautious about the powers that we might give ordinary citizens.
	The powers to effect a citizen's arrest are set out in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which passed through the House earlier this year before the general election. I have no doubt that the necessary safeguards included in the Act will work well. I draw three safeguards to hon. Members' attention. First, the power of citizen's arrest covers only indictable offences. Secondly, an individual must have reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to make an arrest. Thirdly, it should be clear to a person making such an arrest that it is not practical for a constable to make the arrest.

Tobias Ellwood: In a situation in which an arrest must take place, how are individuals supposed to make such judgments? Things happen very quickly and they will not have the Act in their pockets. What advice can the Minister give to individuals in such a position?

Paul Goggins: The whole point of the new clause is that individuals will not have to make such a decision because they will not have the power to make an arrest. People will have the powerand, indeed, the duty in my viewto report what has happened to the police so that they can carry out an investigation and make an arrest if necessary.
	The safeguards represent the necessary high tests. It could be arguedmembers of the Committee might remember that I tried my best to argue thisthat they will be sufficient to cover the new offence. However, I have listened carefully to people, as I promised to do, and thus acknowledge the concerns expressed in Committee about the possibility of an over-zealous interpretation being made.

Sadiq Khan: Does my hon. Friend agree that publicising the fact that there will be no power to make a citizen's arrest will avoid the sort of examples from the Australian state of Victoria that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) cited? He gave examples of individuals attending religious meetings and trying to orchestrate the arrest of people making speeches by saying that they were inflammatory. Does the Minister agree that the new clause will protect lay preachers who are worried that the Bill might allow citizens to arrest them in clearly wrong circumstances?

Paul Goggins: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The new clause will give the reassurance that he suggests. He cited the very different legislation in Victoria state, Australia, under which people report complaints to the Equal Opportunities Commission. However, a different system will apply here. The new clause reassures the preachers who my hon. Friend mentioned. It will send out the clear message that there can be no messing about. People will not have the power to make a citizen's arrest for the offence because that will be entirely a matter for the police.

David Heath: Once the amendment is agreed to, as I hope it will be, surely the situation will be exactly the same here as in the state of Victoria, in that a report will be made and a complaint made against a person, rather than a citizen's arrest being attempted.

Paul Goggins: A report will be made not to the Equal Opportunities Commission, but to the police, who will carry out a full investigation. They will present what they find to the Crown Prosecution Service and then if, together, it is felt that there is sufficient evidence and it satisfies the public interest test, the Attorney-General can consider whether it is appropriate to bring a prosecution. All these safeguards are in place. I agree that it is important that we put in place safeguards to ensure that no over-zealous interpretation of the new offence, or of specific circumstances in which it may occur, inadvertently adds unnecessarily to tensions that may exist.

Gary Streeter: I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the views of the Committee about the power of arrest. However, listening to an important but small point does not let him off the hook for listening to the large points to which we shall come. Can he give some other examples of criminal laws where the power of arrest has also been excluded? How does he intend to publiciseI am sure that his remarks will be well read tomorrow morningand get the message across to people what will happen as a result of the Bill?

Paul Goggins: I said in Committee that I saw my responsibilities for the Bill not simply in getting it through Parliament, but beyond that. When we formulate the guidance, we must do so in a way that is inclusive and helps to raise awareness and to educate people. I believe that many fears will be allayed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have listened and that I will continue to do so throughout our debates.

Ian Paisley: Is the Minister telling the House that there could be a period when the person would not be arrested? Is he saying that if someone else is informing the police, there would not be an immediate arrest?

Paul Goggins: There could be a period during which the police, even if they know that something is happening, wish to investigate further. They may wish to bring someone in under caution for questioning, and they will do that in what they consider to be a responsible way. We seek to prevent somebody from wading into a gathering and acting in an individual way that could exacerbate problems and tensions rather than reduce them.
	In the spirit of consensus, it might be a little churlish to explain to the House why the Government new clause is superior to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. However, it is my duty to do so. There are one or two technical difficulties with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. More seriously, we have made a great effort in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to consolidate all powers of arrest in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Rather than having them scattered, we will have them in one place. That is why we are proposing an amendment to the 1984 Act rather than to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.
	This has not been an issue in terms of race hate law, which has worked perfectly well for nearly 20 years, but the equality of protection, which is a fundamental principle within the Bill, is important. That is why we propose to extend the exception that we are introducing to cover both religious and race hatred. I hope that what I have said illustrates that we have been listening to the concerns that have been expressed.

Dominic Grieve: I thank the Minister for his comments. I am happy to accept new clause 3 in substitution for amendment No. 10. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that, as so often happens when Government draftsmen lay their hands on the idea of others, the new clause reads much more happily than the amendment could ever do. I rejoice that the argument that I advanced in Committee, which I recollect was qualified by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Ms Thornberry) as barmy, appears to have received a sympathetic response from the Government.
	The position is simple. The Bill, which criminalises incitement to religious hatred, leaves open the possibility that individuals could turn up at a public meeting, listen to a speaker's words and conclude that they were infringing the law. Because there would not be a police officer present, under the new rules on the powers of citizen's arrest they could mount the platform and say in colloquial terms, You're nicked. They could then summon the police to take that individual away, regardless of the fact that, as the Minister has often told the House, few prosecutions are anticipated under the provision.
	That highlights another aspect of the Bill, to which we shall doubtless return later today. Its scope is uncertain and it is easy for someone to conclude from its wording that there has been an infringement that would justify an arrest. Even though the Attorney-General may decide that he does not wish to prosecute the matter, there would be no redress for the person who had been arrested, as those who had arrested him could argue that, under the Bill, they had a reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed.
	A greater recipe for community strife could not be imagined. I was reassured that I was not barmy when the week before last I met some police officers in my locality who are policing a multicultural and multi-faith area. I asked them whether they were aware that the provision was going to be introduced and what they thought about it. When they learned what was likely to happen in their locality, their reaction was one of the utmost horror. There are groups in the area that they police that are on the look-out for transgressions by other religious groups or, indeed, by individuals within a religious group. Recently, for instance, one group within a religion had gone to a car park to seize religious items from another group because they believed that those items were about to be misused. The Government are therefore wise to heed my request. I was seriously concerned about the issue, so I thank the Minister for taking it on board.
	The provision has been extended to cover racial hatred. I accept the Minister's reasons for doing so, but I cannot think of a circumstance, even in relation to racial hatred, where one would wish to see a citizen's arrest carried out in this fashion. In Committee, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) said that he could not think of a single instance in which it had been a problem in the past 20 years. That is because it has never happened, but it could well happen in future.
	I am grateful to the Minister, and I will not take up any more of the House's time. I am delighted to be able to tell the Minister that we endorse wholeheartedly the Government new clause even though, I am afraid, we are most unlikely to endorse wholeheartedly the rest of the Bill.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall be brief because the main points have been made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We, too, are minded to support the Government new clause. I am grateful to the Minister for giving the matter careful consideration and for reintroducing the provision in its current form. It would be interesting to know whether there is a wider departmental view about the prudence of certain measures extending citizen's arrest in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, or whether that is limited to this narrow application. However, it would be churlish not to accept the shift by the Government. We are grateful to the Minister and we are pleased to support him.

Paul Goggins: Briefly, I join the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in his praise for the draftsmen, not least for using to better effect some of the ideas that he proposed. I also praise my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Ms Thornberry), who may have her own reasons for describing the hon. Gentleman as barmy, but we need not discuss that now.

Dominic Grieve: rose

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman may wish to explain that himself.

Dominic Grieve: In fairness to the hon. Lady, she may not have described me as barmy, but rather my suggestion about what might happen.

Paul Goggins: I am sure that my hon. Friend will speak for herself about that.
	On the more serious point, I emphasise the importance of ensuring that the new provision is extended to both religious and racial hatred. It is not a case of us being picky. If we do not extend it to both, we provide one set of protection for Jews and Sikhs, who are currently covered by the race hate legislation, and another for other religious groups. It is an important principle, to which we shall return.

Dominic Grieve: After Committee and after pondering that issue, I began to wonder whether, if the provision goes on the statute book as the Government intend, we would find case law develops so that the religious aspects of the racial offence against Jews and Sikhs are transferred to the category of religious, rather than racial, offence, in which case the Government have been worrying about nothing on that point.

Paul Goggins: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are worrying about something very substantial indeed: the evidence we have that people try to stir up hatred against others because of their religious belief. That is the heart of our concern, which we seek to address through the measure. If hon. Members start to differentiate between race and religion in legislation, the anomaly that we are seeking to remedy between Jews and Sikhs and other religious groups would be repeated in the Bill. That would not be welcome.
	I can reassure the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that we intend to limit the exemptions specifically to the new offence, not to any others.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	  
	Protection of Freedom of Expression

'Nothing in Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) shall be read or given effect in a way which restricts or prohibits freedom of speech or expression on any matter of religious belief or lack of religious belief, unless the tone or content of such speech or expression is such as to constitute a justification for violent acts against any group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.'. [Mr. Grieve.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 4Protection for criticism, ridicule, etc.
	'Nothing in Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) shall be read as creating offences that involve material that criticises or ridicules or causes offence.'.
	Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 3 [Clause 1], leave out from 'Act' to end of line 7.
	New schedule 1Racial Hatred
	1  Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) (racial hatred offences) has effect subject to the following amendment.
	2  Section 17 of the Public Order Act is amended to read as follows
	(1)   In this Part 'racial hatred' means hatred against a racial group, of persons defined by reference (whether directly or indirectly) to colour, race, nationality, (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins ('a racial group').
	(2)   In this section
	(a)   'an indirect reference' means a reference to religion or religious belief or to a person's membership or presumed membership of a religious group as a pretext for stirring up racial hatred against a racial group;
	(b)   'religious group' means a group of persons defined by reference to religion or religious belief.
	(3)   It shall not be an offence under this section if the activity consists of
	(a)   criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers, for example, by claiming that they are false or harmful;
	(b)   proselytising one's own religion or urging followers of a different religion to cease practicing theirs;
	(c)   expressing irreverent comedic comments about religion or belief; its worship, teaching, practice or observance;
	(d)   expressing antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents..'.
	Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 1, leave out the Schedule.
	Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 12 [Schedule], at end insert
	'17B   Groups not protected by Part 3
	   For the purposes of Section 17A any group of persons holding the following beliefs or lack of religious belief shall not enjoy the protection of this Part of this Act
	(a)   Satanists;
	(b)   Scientologists;
	(c)   believers in the need for human sacrifice to propitiate a deity;
	(d)   believers in female genital mutilation to live in accordance with the rules of a religion;
	(e)   believers in violence as a means of proselytising a belief;
	(f)   believers in the divinely ordained supremacy of one race over another.'.
	Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 22, leave out 'or religious'.
	Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 30, leave out 'or religious'.
	Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert
	'(3)   In subsection (1)(b), for racial hatred substitute racial or religious hatred.'.
	Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 4, leave out 'or religious'.
	Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 13, leave out 'or religious'.
	Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 21, leave out 'or religious'.
	Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'or religious'.
	Amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 33, at end insert
	'11A  After section 23, insert
	23A   Blasphemous words, etc.
	   For the purposes of determining whether an offence has been committed under sections 18 to 23, it is immaterial whether the words, behaviour, written material, public performance, recording or programme is blasphemous..'.

Dominic Grieve: We return to one of the general issues that we considered extensively in Committee and which, I hope, we may be able to revisit this afternoon in a sensible frame of mind and perhaps from a slightly new angle. It was apparent in Committee that there was a universal acceptance that in the context of human discourse, it is sensible and prudent that people should express themselves moderately wherever possible. Equally, as became clear in the course of debate, there was some acknowledgement that matters of religion are matters of personal conscience, unlike race, which is immutable. I defy any hon. Member who participated in the Committee to have been able to conclude by the end of it that it was possible to distinguish between a religious belief and, say, a political belief. They are all matters of personal opinion and are all capable of criticism.
	In Committee, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Ms Thornberry)I am sorry to bring her in again, as she is not in her placetook the view that we might prudently prohibit all forms of incitement to hatred whatever form it took, therefore including, I suppose, incitement to political hatred. Notwithstanding that, the Minister was clear that he was trying to limit it to incitement to religious hatred only. That gives rise to two questions. First, what is the rationale behind doing this if it is difficult to differentiate religious and political hatred and any other form of hatred? Secondly, how can we do that without preventing or infringing freedom of speech in a way that many hon. Members may find unpalatable and unacceptable?
	In new clause 2, I trywe did not do this in Committeeto approach the matter from a slightly different angle. Is it possible for the House, while allowing the Bill to proceed in its present formI have grave misgivings about that, for reasons to which I shall return laterto have a sufficient definition of the mischief that we are trying to tackle so as to provide reassurance to individuals about the bounds of the criticism in which they can engage in considering other people's religious beliefs and, indeed, those people themselves? The Minister said in Committee that it was not the Government's intention to prevent the most vigorous criticism of religion but to prevent the most vigorous criticism that might incite hatred against the individuals who held those beliefs. We therefore spent some time considering the sort of people who might be protected. In amendment No. 9, I have re-tabled an amendment, in a slightly different form, that we debated in Committee. It highlights the fact that people who might enjoy protection under the Bill include Satanists, Scientologists, believers in the need for human sacrifice to propitiate a deity, believers in female genital mutilation so as to live in accordance with the rules of a religion, believers in violence as a means of proselytising a belief, and believers in the divinely ordained supremacy of one race over another.
	We have to face the fact that under the Bill as drafted, one of the consequences, perhaps unintended, of the Government's approach is that such groups would enjoy a measure of protection and that people would be told that they are not allowed to incite hatred against those who hold such beliefs. We are entitled in this House to express hatred of the British National partyindeed, it is done quite regularlyand we frequently express hatred not only of the BNP but of some of its leading participants and proponents. Philosophically speaking, what is the difference between that and the hatred that one might have of people who believed in female genital mutilation as part of their religious convictions? I have never been able to understand how that distinction can be made.
	In Committee, the Minister engaged in a certain amount of nimble footwork in trying to suggest that some of the people whom I list in amendment No. 9 would not be covered by the Bill because a religion has to have some public benefit. However, it is possible to have a religion that has a public benefit and where people still believe in some of those things. As there is no definition of religion in the Bill, it will attract the definitions that currently exist under human rights law and charity law, which are extremely broad and will cover individual sects, including those that many people might regard as repellent.
	Can we find a way through this? New clause 2 says:
	Nothing in Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 . . . shall be read or given effect in a way which restricts or prohibits freedom of speech or expression on any matter of religious belief or lack of religious belief, unless the tone or content of such speech or expression is such as to constitute a justification for violent acts against any group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.
	What is wrong with that new clause? How does it undermine the Government's intention? If I have understood the rationale behind their arguments correctly, it is that we must curb freedom of speech not because of the speech itself but because of its corrosive consequences in acts committed against individuals. The Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but that appears to be the justification for the Government's position.

Douglas Hogg: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's aim, but he asked what the problem with the new clause was. It does not refer to intent. It simply refers to whether speech constitutes a justification. Surely the new clause should be directed towards intent.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. In Committee, we spent much time considering intent. If he examines some of the other amendments that I have tabled, especially amendments Nos. 3 to 8, he will realise that leaving out the word religious would confine the offence of inciting religious hatred to one of specific intent and remove it from the second category, which is sometimes described as the likely limb. I am afraid that that is not immediately clear, but that alternative approach might commend itself to hon. Members.
	I must however be realistic. I have to accept, in the light of what happened in Committee, that the Government vigorously reject the approach. They were committed to maintaining the duality of incitement to racial and religious hatred, including the possibility that the offence could be committed not only with but without specific intent, if the threatening, insulting or abusive words were likely to be heard by people in whom they were likely to stir up religious hatred. I stress to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that that is one of the reasons for my fundamental objection to the Bill.
	Given that we are on Report and I am trying to tempt the Government, however, I am at least willing to try to encourage them to consider new clause 2 and provide some greater protection. If they did that, I would not jump up and down and say that the Bill was acceptable but it must get through not only this place but another place. The prospect of its getting though another place in its current form is limited. Given that I have always attempted to proceed by argument, not simply by confrontation, I tabled new clause 2 because it provides at least a measure of definition. Unless we provide that the words can be construed as constituting justification for violence, the Bill gives complete protection, whether there was specific intent or not.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government reject new clause 2, it would make their promise that the Bill would not curtail freedom of speech hollow? That would reinforce the view of many of us that they intend the new orthodoxy about which Labour Members spoke in Committee. The Government have banned people from doing things that they do not like and the Bill now bans people from saying things that they do not like.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is right. There is the hint of a new orthodoxy in the air, which provides that people must restrict their speech so that they do not cause offence or encourage people to dislike others, whatever the views of the person to be disliked. Philosophically, that is a nail in the coffin of a free society. The moment we go down that road, it will be impossible to hold the sort of robust discourse that created the freedoms and democracy that this country enjoys. They were not born of everybody being inclusively kind to each other. I am sure that many advances in freedom of speech in the past 200 years were offensive to those on the receiving end.

John Bercow: I recognise that my hon. Friend is trying to improve rather than retard the Bill. However, I put it to him, without wishing to nit-pick, that the unspoken premise of new clause 2 appears to be that there should be no requirement to prove intention because people must simply be assumed to intend the natural consequences of their actions. That is a dangerous working premise. In matters of argument, whether political or religious, the assumption of rationality is rather dangerous.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. However, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that new clause 2 has to be read in conjunction with the Bill. The measure creates an offence of incitement to religious hatred, one limb of which requires specific intentthe intent is therefore already presentwhile the other limb requires, in the absence of specific intent, the words to be threatening, abusive or insulting and likely to be heard by people in whom they are likely to stir up hatred. My hon. Friendand my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykehammust forgive me, but we went over the matter in great detail in Committee.

John Bercow: I was not privileged to serve on the Committee.

Dominic Grieve: I appreciate that. Indeed, if my hon. Friend wants to develop the argument, he can examine the other amendments which I mentioned and to which I intended to move on, but I do not want to take up too much time.

John Bercow: Go on.

Dominic Grieve: I shall do so briefly and shortly.
	In the meantime, new clause 2 does not remove the limb that requires specific intent. It simply makes it clear that, irrespective of whether there is specific intent, the words, speech or expression must be
	such as to constitute a justification for violent acts.
	It has the merit that, once introduced as a concept, many things that people say about others, including things that may be offensive, certainly insulting, but probably not threateningthreats in discourse have little place in a democratic societywould be defused. In Committee, we worried especially about insulting terms.
	My impression from contact with many members of secular and religious groups who have deep anxiety about the Billabout 2,000 of them, in an impressive gathering, remarkable for its diversity, were demonstrating outside the House this afternoonis that they would at least be reassured that their ability to express their dislike of other people's beliefs or their views on the morality of others would be protected, even if some people might find it insulting and even if some idiot elsewhere in the country seized on it as a justification for doing something that the ordinary words used could not possibly justify.
	I challenge the Under-Secretary to explain why new clause 2 is unacceptable. It makes some progress towards achieving a measure of greater agreement about how to include safeguards in the Bill.

Evan Harris: In the hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks, he spoke of the difficulty of distinguishing between religion and politics, or at least the principle of providing for an offence of inciting religious hatred but not political hatred. Has he had the opportunity to consider the position of, say, an Islamic People's party or Christian Democrats, if their members claim that their critics are inciting hatred against them on the ground of religion, not politics? Does that give them an unfair advantage in the hurly-burly of political discourse?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There are in the world todayand, indeed, in this countrygroups who have founded their political agenda on religious principles. Indeed, in Europe, the Christian Democrats did exactly that for a long time. So the two concepts are closely linked, but one of the questions that the Minister failed completely to answer in Committee was how we should disentangle them. I do not think that they can be disentangled.
	The Minister falls back on the argument that the disentanglement will be done by the poor old Attorney-General, who, when confronted with a set of facts, will decide whether they transgress or exceed the mark. The Minister knows my view on this: it is very unsatisfactory to create a legislative framework that is wholly incomprehensible to the wider public and leaves them at the mercy of a single individual who sits in his office and decides whether they have overstepped the mark. I fear, too, that when prosecutions start, this approach will lead to all sorts of allegations that the Attorney-General is being selective and protecting certain religious groups and not others. I defy the Minister: even the Attorney-General, a man who would seek to apply a great measure of dispassionate assessment to any problem that he faced, could not fail to be swayed by societal considerations about what is or is not a mainstream point of view.

Paul Goggins: Perhaps I could ask the hon. Gentleman to calm down a little. He knows that in the nearly 20 years that the law on race hatred has operated, there have been 76 prosecutions, 44 convictions and seven occasions on which the Attorney-General has stopped a prosecution proceeding. It would serve the hon. Gentleman and the House well if we could put the role of the Attorney-General into perspective in this regard. It is an important role, but let us just get it in perspective.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but I believe that there is a clear distinction between race and religion. Race is immutable and, on any consensus view, a very poor foundation on which any intelligent person could make a distinction about someone's other characteristics. Religion, on the other hand, relates very strongly to a person's personal characteristics and views. The Attorney-General will therefore face a much harder task in regard to decisions on religious hatred than he does on racial hatred. That seems to be reflected by the fact that the Minister has suggested publicly that the level of prosecutions on religious hatred will be far lower even than that of prosecutions on racial hatred in the past few years.

Paul Goggins: I have a further reason to intervene on the hon. Gentleman: I have never suggested that. In fact, I have suggested that the numbers would be broadly similar. As I have just said, in nearly 20 years, there have been 44 convictions. The hon. Gentleman has once again described his view that religion is different from race, and of course I agree that there are differences, although I do not agree with his analysis. I simply wanted to point out that the Attorney-General comes some way down the process in this regard. The police first have to investigate a case; the Crown Prosecution Service then has to decide whether there is sufficient evidence and whether it would be in the public interest to pursue it. That all happensand it happens wellbefore the Attorney-General has a veto over a case. I simply ask the hon. Gentleman to keep this matter in perspective.

Dominic Grieve: I had rather hoped that I was keeping it in perspective. The Minister's suggestion that there would be very few prosecutions seems to have been put forward to reassure the vast majority of people who are engaging in religious debate that they need have no fear while doing so. My anxiety is that the Bill is worded in such a way that anyone looking at its terms will see that they are very wide, and that only the Attorney-General's discretion will restrict them. For those reasons, I am trying to find a way forward.
	I do not much care for the BillI shall come back to that in a moment and suggest some alternativesbut I am trying to suggest ways in which the Attorney-General's remit might be lessened. The police might therefore not need to get involved. They might say, There was nothing in those words that could justify violent acts against anyone. You might find them very offensive, you might not like what was said, and people might be getting very worked up about it, but there is no justification for prosecution because the hatred was not of a kind that would tend towards acts of violence.
	One of the problems with the Bill is that it does not define hatred. By its usual definition, all that it amounts to is an intense dislike.

Chris Bryant: Or enmity.

Dominic Grieve: Indeed. The implication that a person is likely to carry out an act of violence does not flow logically from either of those concepts. That is one of the reasons why the Bill is seriously flawed. I simply ask the Minister seriously to consider whether new clause 2 might provide a way forward in that regard.

Chris Bryant: The bit that the hon. Gentleman has left out of all his discourse so far is that each of the sections of the Public Order Act 1986 contains a get-out clause, as it werea reason why someone might not be committing an offence. Each section is worded slightly differently, but they include circumstances in which a person is unaware of the content of the material in question or does not suspect or have reason to suspect that it is threatening, abusive or insulting. So there are already provisions under which someone would not be guilty of an offence.

Dominic Grieve: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I have always thought that those were more of a publisher's get-out than a proponent's get-out. I suppose that it is just possible that a person might use threatening, abusive or insulting words without knowing that they were, but it would be rather surprising.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman might be right so far as section 20 of the Public Order Act is concerned, but each of the different sections is worded very specifically to ensure that there is a get-out, not only for publishers but for people who use words and behaviour, or puts on a play or makes a broadcast, in each of the different categories. The Act is pretty clear.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I still believe that a protection that states, as the Public Order Act does, that
	A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting
	does not address the second issue, which relates to the stirring up of hatred. Clearly, if people are prevented from using threatening, abusive or insulting words, or have a let-out that they did not realise that they were threatening, abusive or insulting, that is one thing. However, I felt that the Minister made it clear in Committee that there might be circumstances in which someone could use insulting behaviour. Many people regard certain comedy turns as insulting, for example. If a comedy were to be put on that was deeply insulting to the religion being parodied, it would lose the person involved the protection of that particular limb of the Act.

Evan Harris: Until the hon. Gentleman uttered those last few words, he was being far too kind to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The defence in section 18(5) of the Public Order Act is no defence for those who are putting on a play or performance, especially when people have been consulted about its content in an attempt to meet their concerns. The people putting on the play would have been told, We find this insulting, so they could not be unaware of the fact. If anything, the measures would encourage people not to consult or to let people know in advance that they might be putting risky material into a comedy, an entertainment or a play. Whether the material would incite hatred against individuals is a separate issue, but the measure that has just been mentioned is no help.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why we must be so careful with this legislation. New clause 2 at least offers some measure of protection. It is unlikely that anyone would suggest that a comedian's lampoonhowever pointed, barbed or insultingcould constitute an encouragement to violent acts.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has identified perhaps the greatest problem with the Bill, namely that hatred is not properly defined. Might I suggest that a way forward might be to define the concept so that it involved a propensity to cause violence? That would involve taking up his new clause, and attaching that concept to the definition of hatred.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. If the Minister were to come to the Dispatch Box and suggest that that might be a way to proceed, I would welcome it. The fact that we can have this kind of debate on Report is extremely useful, because when the Bill goes to another place, the record of these proceedings will doubtless be read, and people will be able to see that that suggestion represents another approach to the problem. I tabled quite a few amendments in Committee to try to find a way around this problem. They were rejected, however. On Report, therefore, I wanted to confine myself to essentials. My right hon. and learned Friend is right, however, that that might be a better approach, and that a definition of hatred could be extremely helpful. Anyone who looks in the dictionary can see that the term is not well defined, which has been one of the anxieties throughout our consideration of this legislation.

Ian Paisley: On Second Reading, I asked the Home Secretary a question concerning statements in the Bible and in the confessions of faith of all the Churches telling against various other beliefs. I asked:
	Is he telling us that those statements will be deemed to be not statements of hatred, but the personal confessions of those Churches?
	The House begins its sittings with a prayer from the Book of Common Prayer. Parts of the Book of Common Prayer, such as the 39 Articles, have strong statements to make. Would those statements be considered as an incitement to hatred?[Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c.671.]
	He said: No, they would not. Surely the way to safeguard that in the Bill would be to accept the hon. Gentleman's new clause, but there is nothing in the Bill to safeguard the promise made. The Minister replying to the debate knows well that one cannot go into a court and say, When the Bill passed through the House of Commons the Minister said this, for the judge would laugh and say, Sit down.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right. In Committee, I quoted from the Koran, the Old Testament, the New Testament and the 39 Articles, particularly Article 18. I do not wish to bore the House with repetition, however.

Patrick Cormack: I was unavoidably detained elsewhere during the early stages of the Bill. Did my hon. Friend quote from Voltaire, who, however much he disliked what one said, would defend to the death one's right to say it? Would not that be a more civilised maxim to guide the House today?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is right. I do not think that I needed to quote thatit had been quoted extensively by others before I had the opportunity to do so. One of the problems highlighted in Committee was that many texts in the Bible, and certainly in the Koran, given a literal interpretation, must certainly be said to stir up hatred. One of the psalms that I read is specifically about hating other people who do one harm. In those circumstances, I raised the matter with the Minister. The 39 Articles also make it clear that there is a duty to point out the error of others, and to challenge them in their views.

Lynne Featherstone: While I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do with this new clause, does not he agree that his argument with the Attorney-General making a judgment might apply similarly to a third party having to judge the tone and content of something?

Dominic Grieve: Ultimately, someone must make a judgement, and on the basis of new clause 2, the people making the judgment will be the jurors in the criminal trial that takes place. At least it would be possible, however, to say to the jurors, Unless, members of the jury, you are satisfied that the tone and content of what was said was such as to constitute a justification for a violent act against another group, it doesn't matter how threatening, abusive, insulting or what the intent might have been. It is irrelevant; the person is not guilty. It would boil down to that.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I understand that Voltaire, on his death bed, was asked to renounce the devil and all his works, and he said that it was no time to make unnecessary enemies. Under the Bill, might he have been in some difficulty and forbidden to die?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Lady makes a good point. I shall leave it to the Minister to answer that conundrum.

Tony Wright: Is not a further complication that we happily allow people to hate each other, and in any case, how can we prevent them from doing so? It is an entrenched part of terrace culture that the supporters of certain football clubs hate those of other football clubs. We live with that. Surely the problem comes when the hatred leads to violence or incitement to violence. That is the distinction that we must capture.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a difficult dividing line. In fairness to the Government, as I understand it, they have kept on saying that the mischief that they are trying to meet is precisely the one that he identifies. The trouble is, however, that once one starts to argue that incitement to religious hatred is a criminal offence of itself, one has moved the goalposts a very long way. Anyone who reads this Bill can see that it potentially criminalises a wide range of expressions of views about other people.

Douglas Hogg: Is not the truth that we are beginning to see a consensus building up that what is objectionable is not just the state of mind of the person listening to the language but the consequences of that state of mind? Therefore, what we are trying to strike down is language that might cause a state of mind to arise which itself will give rise to violent or unlawful conduct. Are we not coming to that?

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend has got it absolutely right. The problem then, which is one of the reasons why I think this legislation is so misguided, is that the Government have found themselves hoisted on their commitment to create equality and a level playing field between racial and religious hatred. As a result, as became apparent from debates in Committee, every time a suggestion was made that religion should be treated differently from incitement to racial hatred, it was condemned by the Government on the basis that they would then fail in the promise that they made to the Muslim community, as I understand it, to create a level playing field with Jews and Sikhs. That is why I suggested to the Minister earlier that the Government might like to consider the possibility of splitting hatred against Jews and Sikhs on religious grounds from hatred against them on racial grounds. I accept, however, that that is a problem. As long as the Government persist in demanding that the Bill should apply equally as regards race and religion, we will be faced with that problem.
	In the fascinating debate in Committee, which I found to be one of the most interesting in which I have been involved since entering the House, it became plain to me that the Government were trying to do something that was difficult, impossible and had a whole series of unintended consequences about which the House should be concerned. The truth is that race and religion are different. As long as the Government persist in maintaining that they must be treated identically, we will face that sort of problem.
	In the other amendments that we tabled, we tried to deal with the problem through an alternative approach, by leaving the offence of specific intent in religious hatred but removingif I may use the expression that seems to have been introduced in Committeethe likely limb of the offence. That approach has much to commend it, but falls foul of the issue that I raised a moment ago about the equality between racial and religious hatred. Again, as long as the Government are hooked on maintaining that link, it will not help them to find a way through their problem. I have grave anxieties, however, about whether people should be criminalised on the basis of expressions of religious hatred unless they were specifically intending to foment such hatred. In those circumstances, those are other grounds on which the House might consider that it would be sensible to allow a distinction to be made between racial and religious hatred.

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman made a key point about Jews and Sikhs. A number of legal experts tell me that they do not believe there is discrimination now, and that Jews and Sikhs are protected against incitement to racial hatred because there is no Act or law that defines religious hatred. The new schedule will make it absolutely clear that any victim of incitement to racial hatred, whether or not that victim is a religious group, should and could be covered by the Bill. I do not believe, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not believe, that the anomaly that the Government have identified does exist.

Dominic Grieve: What the hon. Gentleman says is relevant to the new schedule, which seeks to deal with circumstances already established by case lawcircumstances in which an attack on someone's racial and ethnic identity is made through the medium of his religion.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman on another point. I have never had the impression that the clause protecting Jews and Sikhs from racial hatred was intended to protect them from criticism, even vigorous criticismor even the fomenting of dislikeon the basis of their religious views. The Minister may correct me, but I know of no prosecution that has been brought on the basis that criticism was in fact criticism of their religious views. In my experience, such prosecutions have generally been brought as a result of far wider attacks on people's ethnic identity. To that extent, I have always thought that the anxiety apparently expressed by the Muslim community in Britain, which the Bill seems to want to address, is fundamentally misplaced.
	Let us assume for a moment, however, that the Government wish to cure that problem. One way of doing so would be to adopt the new schedule. We have been over this ground before, and I leave it to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) to speak to the new schedule, which has been described as the Lord Lester amendment. I will say, though, that it has the merit of allowing protection to be set down in statute for those who are under attack on the basis of their ethnic identity through the medium of their religion. The courts have already succeeded through case law, but the new schedule would set it down in black and white, and I think it would provide a really effective compromise. We have mentioned that before, and I look forward to hearing the Minister explain why it is not a better approach.
	I apologise for taking up so much time, but the issues are lumped together. This is an important group of proposals. I urge the Minister to respond positively, because if we do not find a way forward, the Bill will go nowhereor, at any rate, no further than the House of Commons. Moreover, we will introduce to an area in which I believe there is some agreement a further degree of party-politicisation, which I do not particularly welcome in the circumstances and which will continue until the Government decideif they wishto use the Parliament Act to force the Bill through.
	That would not make the Bill any better. We have here a number of proposals which, if the Government responded to them positively, would at least provide a way forward. I must make it clear to the Minister that I have always considered the Lord Lester amendment to be the best option, but I hope that if they find it unacceptable, the Government will look sensibly at some of the other ideas.

Peter Soulsby: At the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument is the assertion that a person's religious belief is, in many respects, very similar to that person's political belief orthis example was given earlierhis or her support for a football club. Does he accept that many people's religious beliefs are much more fundamental than their political beliefs, or even their support for football clubs? Are not those beliefs fundamentally connected to their family, culture and heritage? Indeed, in many cases their religious beliefs are even more fundamental to their sense of identity than their race.

Dominic Grieve: Some would argueand I think surveys demonstrate itthat many people's political views are inherited. That certainly applies to the political parties that they may choose to support.

Douglas Hogg: Look who's talking.

Dominic Grieve: Of course, some may be apostates when it comes to the political views of their forefathers. Nevertheless, one's political views are closely bound up with one's philosophical outlook. But I would hate that to be treated as a defining characteristic, so immutable that it was entitled to special protection. What worries me about the approach of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) is that it does suggest that someone's religious outlook is immutable. It suggests that we can compartmentalise society into a series of blocks of individuals believing certain things, which deserve to be preserved in aspic for all time without challenge.
	I believe that in the pluralistic society that we are rapidly becoming in this countryindeed, we may have already reached that pointwe should be going in the opposite direction. Far from there being special protection, people must face the fact that their personal point of view on matters as sensitive as religion, for instance, will come in for robust criticism, discussion and discourse. If we embark on the road down which I fear the Bill will take us, we will institutionalise difference, curb debate and thus produce a far less flexible society than the society we undoubtedly need if we are to go forward and prosper.

Peter Soulsby: I certainly do not think that a religious outlook needs be immutable, but I believe it to be fundamental. It is, I believe, fundamental to how people identify themselves, and fundamental in a way that is particularly relevant to the Billfundamental to how others identify them and promote hatred of them. Surely the purpose of the Bill is to protect those who are identified by others, and by themselves, according to their religion. Surely we should extend the protection that already exists in the context of their identification in terms of race.

Dominic Grieve: I appreciate that we are dealing with religious hatred. We should bear it in mind, however, that 200 years ago those in this Chamberor rather down the Corridor, where the Chamber was thenwere living in a society in which, notwithstanding the tolerance accorded to some dissenters and indeed to small Jewish minorities, there was a consensus, institutionalised by Parliament, that certain Christian beliefs contained in the 39 Articles of religion must be imposed for the sake of social conformity, and to maintain the body politic. That is the state in which our country then was.
	Over the last 200 years we have seen a dramatic change, not just in the extent of the tolerance accorded to others who wish to practise other religious beliefs. The country is in the process of a massive transformation: multiculturalism and religious views are important not just to small minority groups, but to substantial sections of society. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that in those circumstances I think it is particularly important for freedom of discourse to be maintained, including freedom to criticise in vehement terms. We must all get used to that. If we do not, we shall be moving in the wrong direction.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend is arguing strongly for new schedule 1, and I agree with him. One answer might be to insert in the new schedule a further amendment defining hatred, so that only conduct likely to cause people to engage in violence or unlawful behaviour towards the group in question would be unlawful. There would be parity in the case of both racial and religious groups, because we would have redefined hatred to involve the consequences of that state of mind.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend has repeated an important point to which I hope that the Government will respond, elsewhere if not here.
	There is a philosophical argument that, because racial characteristics are immutable, allowing people to express hatred based simply on race is so peculiar and irrational that it may be proper to curb it. That, I think, is why it was curbed in the racial hatred clauses of the Public Order Act 1986. So while I very much agree with my right hon. and learned Friend about the application of this argument to religion, I should want to think very carefully about rowing back from the 1986 Act, which was framed to protect people on the basis of their racial identity. That could be argued to be a retrograde step; however, I hope that this issue can be looked at elsewhere.
	I hope that the Minister will consider the new clause and related amendments carefully. I point out now, should I be unable to do so later, that I will put my name to, and view with great sympathy, new schedule 1.

Tony Wright: There were some rather elevated exchanges earlier on about Voltaire, which lifted the tone of the debate no end. While they were going on, I was rather reminded of John Stuart Mill, which shows how complicated these issues are. In his famous mid-19th century essay On Liberty, which defined how many of us think about these matters, he gives a very nice example. He says that it is perfectly proper for people to go around saying that all corn dealers are thieves, but that it would not be appropriate to say that to an excited mob outside a corn dealer's house. I am not sure that Mill is right, but that example does show the importance of getting these distinctions right.

Dominic Grieve: Of course, that precise example is currently covered by other sections of the Public Order Act 1986, and it is an important distinction. We are talking about inciting people, through speech, to have hatred of others. Even under the current law, those who insult in the street people such as corn dealers on the basis of their religion are likely to be arrested.

Tony Wright: Yes, and as we all know this is the important distinction. We are at one on the issues of incitement and violence, but we are not at one on where to draw the distinction between beliefs and believers. We keep coming back to this issue from many different directions, but it is fundamental to the Bill. Many of us are very keen to respond to the argument that we need to stop members of certain groups being picked on. We do not like people being picked on, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that certain members of religious communities are being picked on not for their religion, but simply because of who they are. So we respond very positively to the need to protect people against being picked on, which is why I approach this argument in a sympathetic spirit. However, at the same time, I want people to be able to pick on other people's beliefs. That presents us with a difficulty. How can we protect the right of people to pick on other people's beliefs, while not picking on such people simply because they belong to a religious group?

Patrick Cormack: Is it not equally important that people have the opportunity robustly to express their beliefs?

Tony Wright: Indeed it is, and I take that to be part of the same point.
	There is a balancing act that we want to perform, but not because some of us are on the side of free speech and others are on the side of protection. Most of us want both to protect and to guarantee free speech; we are simply trying to find the correct balance.

Douglas Hogg: In citing the words of Mill, the hon. Gentleman in fact told us how that balance should be struck. The reason why we do not describe corn merchants as thieves when we are standing outside a corn merchant's house is that the mob might throw a brick through the corn merchant's window. In other words, we consider the consequences of the words that we use, and that is the point on which we should be focusing, is it not?

Tony Wright: I thought that it might be hazardous to cite that example, and in fact, the situation is even more complicated than that. In fact, in such a circumstance one is invoking anticipated possible consequences, rather than real ones. By way of defence, a person might say, Of course I am entitled to say that all corn dealers are thieves when outside a corn dealer's house. I am not saying that you should act on that belief. I am not saying that you should burn the man's house down. So it is quite a leap to jump from a point of view that is certainly controversial, and in respect of which the circumstances matter, to an assumption about its consequences.
	The serious distinction that we have to draw is between beliefs and believers. In trying to strike this balancewe are all doubtless trying to strike it in different waysI simply wanted the Bill to provide some reassurance. The Minister, who could not be a more congenial and agreeable person to have at the Dispatch Box in these circumstances, has indicated his desire to find this middle ground, if it can be found. My new clause simply states:
	Nothing in Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 . . . shall be read as creating offences that involve material that criticises or ridicules or causes offence.
	It is simply an attempt in the most anodyne way possiblea way designed to maximise agreementto secure in the Bill the commitment that nothing in it will stop people criticising or ridiculing other people's belief systems, and that no offences will be created simply because someone acts in that way. If we include such a   provision, we will have gone a long way toward getting   the balance right, and toward providing the reassurances that many of us want.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is common ground in all parts of the House on the question of dealing with the mischief that the Government are addressing, and he is right to say that the Minister has been at pains to point out that the Bill will not create the mischief that some of us fear, which is unnecessary prosecutions. The difficulty that some of us have is that the Minister always ends up saying that the Attorney-General will act as the stop on such prosecutions, and that they will therefore not reach court. In doing so, the Minister fails to recognise that the problem is the effect that the complaint and the investigation will have on someone who is simply proselytising their religion, cracking a joke or doing any of the things that we believe to be part of free speech.

Tony Wright: That is true and of course, according to a further powerful argument that has been deployed in this debate, if the Bill is left as it is, it will create expectations of consequences that will never be realised and should never be realised, and which the Government have said will never be realised. The argument is that the Bill is designed to offer symbolic reassurance, but that in doing so, it will generate expectations that, when unmet, will have consequences contrary to those that the Government quite properly want.
	I have simply taken almost word for word paragraph 15 of the explanatory notes, which seeks to give such a reassurance. It states:
	The offences will not encompass material that just stirs up ridicule or prejudice or causes offence.
	Such a statement is, more or less, what I would like to be included in the Bill. I would be prepared to add a just or a merely if that would help the Government, but having listened very carefully to what they had to say throughout our deliberations, I do not believe that there could be any conceivable objection to including in the Bill such a bland, anodyne statement. It became absolutely clear what this Bill was about and was not about.

Philip Davies: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his sensible new clause. Does he agree that the biggest danger with the Bill is not that someone will be sent to jail who should not be, but that, without his amendment, people will be afraid to speak out on things on which the Government would not mind them speaking because of the uncertainty over the Bill? Is not the biggest danger that the Bill will restrict freedom of speech because people will be unsure as to what they can say and what they cannot say?

Tony Wright: Yes, feelings will be generated on all sides that will be unhelpful to the Government's objective.
	The Minister may be about to tell me that he agrees entirely with this anodyne new clause, in which case I could have saved myself a few moments on the Floor of the House. If not, I fear that this is but a foretaste of what is to come. It would be better to try to put a reassurance of this kind in the Bill now. If so, the Government will have a chance of securing the Bill with assent. Without it, I fear that that may not be the case.

Alistair Carmichael: I should say that unless the Minister was minded to accept our amendments and new schedule, it would be my intention to seek to test the view of the House by way of a Division at the conclusion of our proceedings on this group.
	In this short debate, we have already had significant references to the work of Voltaire and John Stuart Mill. I should place on record that at different stages of my academic career, such as it was, I have been a student of moral philosophy and of jurisprudence. I should add that sufficient time has passed for me to be candid and to state that I slept through most of my lectures on both subjects, but I did learn one thing from them, which was not to get involved in arguments that one was not qualified to argue. With all due respect to the hon. Members for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), I hope the House will forgive me if I take a more practical rather than philosophical approach to the amendments.
	Implicit in what the Minister said in relation to the earlier group of amendments was that although we have had Second Reading and Committee and are now on Report, we have never got over the real issue that lies at the heart of the Bill and the difficulty it causes me and others. That issue is the fundamental distinction between the nature of religion and the nature of race and the very different views that should be taken to hatred that is stirred up on the basis of one's race and one's religion. That stems from the immutability of one's racial characteristics, which is quite different from the changeable nature of one's religious views.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is not the simple distinction that one can change one's beliefs but not one's race?

Alistair Carmichael: That is it. For that very reason, hatred on the basis of race is a completely irrational thing; one is hating somebody else for something over which they have no control.
	The point bears making, however, that there is a degree of compulsion that comes with one's religious beliefs and questions of faith that leads one to demand and to be entitled to a degree of protection from the law. That is one of the biggest difficulties that the Bill faces. It is because one is compelled to speak out in a certain way because of one's religious beliefs that the freedom of religious expression is very important and the Bill poses a real danger in this regard. The Government may have rather oversold the Bill in some religious communities, but there is a growing realisation that the   Bill will be as unpopular among the Muslim communities as it will be among those who have been lobbying us so vigorously in the last few weeks.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is spelling out what he thinks is at the core of the Bill, but will he address this question? Causing hatred is obviously a very wrong activity, but should it by itself be an unlawful activity? It would be quite wrong to cause hatred for homosexuals, but if that does not spill over into unlawful or violent conduct towards homosexuals, should the law intervene?

Alistair Carmichael: There is no single answer to that question. There are certainly clear areas where it is in public policy interest that we should prevent hatred and racial hatred is now accepted as being one of the most important areas. Our view is that we do not think that the creation of the new offence of religious hatred is within the ambit of public policy or what is desirable under it.

Douglas Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but why should stirring up racial hatred by itself be an unlawful offence? Should we not be saying that hatred becomes criminal if it is likely to result in unlawful conduct towards the group brought into that state of hatred?

Alistair Carmichael: That is an interesting point of view, and if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper I would be minded to explore it with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am mindful that we are beyond Second Reading and I do not want to pursue this at too much length because we are where we are. We have the now-accepted position in law of the illegality of inciting somebody to stir up racial hatred. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that it would be preferable to make hatred leading to some further unlawful act an offence. It is an interesting discussion, but the debate has moved on beyond that.
	New schedule 1 is the crux of the issue and is about trying to make the Bill workable. It would be helpful to read it briefly into the record. It brings with it a definition of racial hatred, which it seeks to define as hatred
	against a racial group, of persons defined by reference (whether directly or indirectly) to colour, race, nationality, (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins ('a racial group').
	It goes on to say that, in the section,
	'an indirect reference' means a reference to religion or religious belief or to a person's membership or presumed membership of a religious group as a pretext for stirring up racial hatred against a racial group . . . 'religious group' means a group of persons defined by reference to religion or religious belief.
	It is our view that that brings with it the answer to the problem that the Government have identified. I am not entirely persuaded that the problem is more real than apparent, but to take them at face valueto accept that they are acting in good faithwhat we have here is a fairly elegant expression of the law as it currently stands.
	The provision would put beyond doubt the fact that a Muslimas distinct from a Jew or a Sikh, who has the benefit of coverage in relation to racial hatred or on the basis of mono-ethnicitywould be covered in circumstances where hatred was intentionally racially motivated. I am inclined to say that that is already the case. It certainly seems to be the view of a number of commentators who are better qualified in law than me, including my noble and learned Friend Lord Lester. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his somewhat inappropriate remarks about the motivations of Lord Lester. In the first sitting in Committee, the Minister suggested that my noble and learned Friend
	understands precisely that it would not work in practice and that is why he makes the proposal.[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 28 June 2005; c. 27.]
	I have to say that that was one of the few occasions on which the Minister fell below the standard that we usually expect of him in Committee. Frankly, it was an unworthy remark about someone with the pedigree of my noble and learned Friend. I hope that the Minister will feel that it is possible to be a little more generous about him today.

Chris Bryant: There is a point that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand. However attractive Labour Members found the Lester amendment, we believed that some people would choose to incite others on the basis of their religionthe hon. Gentleman would say, as a proxy for their raceand that the Lester proposal would incentivise people to act that way even more. It provides a clear get-out clause for those who are referring only to religion by virtue of religion. That is the problem.

Alistair Carmichael: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about people who are being attacked on a theological or doctrinal basis, rather than as a proxy for race, I believe that that is perfectly proper. I do not believe that the law should protect people from attacks on either theological or doctrinal bases. Furthermore, if it is anything other than that, I have to tell him that it would be covered by the terms of the new schedule, which I invite him to reflect on more closely and carefully.
	Our other concern is that the Government have adopted a very narrow approach to the Bill. If we are to deal effectively with religious hatred, we cannot deal with it in isolation. We have to recognise that the reform of the law of blasphemy is long overdue. That law, which provides protection only to people in the Church of England rather than Christians as a whole, is a law that has long since outlived any useful purpose that it may ever have had. In that regard, I want to mention amendment No. 12, which is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). He has tabled the provision in a personal capacity, but I want to make it clear that I have absolutely no difficulty in supporting it and that I commend him for introducing it.
	The other important element of the new schedule is what I would call the free-speech rider in paragraph (3), which suggests that
	It shall not be an offence under this section if the activity consists of . . . criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers, for example, by claiming that they are false or harmful; . . . proselytising one's own religion or urging followers of a different religion to cease practicing theirs; . . . expressing irreverent comedic comments about religion or belief; its worship, teaching, practice or observance; . . . expressing antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents.
	A significant distinction may be drawn between that free-speech rider and the one in new clause 2, proposed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. My provision is about protection of free speech, whereas he invites us to accept a condemnation of speech that is used to justify violence. I wonder if he might have been better advised to finish his new clause after the words
	belief or lack of religious belief.
	It would then read simply:
	Nothing in Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 . . . shall be read or given effect in a way which restricts or prohibits freedom of speech or expression on any matter of religious belief or lack of religious belief.
	Thereafter, the operation of the new clause becomes problematic. I appreciate why he brought it forward and I am broadly with him, but I see some difficulties with the wording.

Dominic Grieve: I have to say that if I were to confine my remarks to those phrases, it would mark the end of the Bill. That might be a very good thing, but I tried to be realistic. Without any qualifying element, we would be saying that freedom of speech cannot be restricted in respect of
	any matter of religious belief or lack of religious belief.
	It seems to me that that amounts to the end of the Bill in its entirety.

Alistair Carmichael: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has read my mind and realised why I was so keen on that rather truncated version of events. New schedule 1 would not introduce the concept of incitement to religious hatred at all; I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that he is trying to make the best of the Government's rather poor job on this provision.
	That covers the essential aspects of new schedule 1. The question was raised in Committee whether the Bill would provide protection for what were broadly referred to as white Muslims. I have to say that I accept now as I did in Committee that that is very much the case. In order to justify a measure of this nature, I have to tell the Minister that I would need to be persuaded that there was a significant and pressing problem. I have not yet seen such evidence[Interruption.] Perhaps we are about to be provided with it.

Peter Soulsby: The point made in Committee that still applies now is that it is not just a question of giving protection to white Muslims. There are many Muslims in many mosques, just as there are many Christians in many churches: people from many different racial backgrounds are represented. Somalis, Pakistanis, Kosovans, Indians, Bangladeshis, people from Saudi Arabia and from many other countries are represented in mosques in this country. The point of new schedule 1 is that it would enable those who wished to whip up hatred against any of those people in a particular mosqueas, indeed, in a particular church, which may have many different ethnic and racial groups presentto do so. It would provide the perfect excuse for someone to point to a mosque and say, Look, there are many different racial groups there and I am not, of course, whipping up hatred against any of those particular groups because

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is exceeding the bounds of an intervention. May I say to the House that interventions are generally becoming rather discursive? There is limited time for debate and some hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye.

Alistair Carmichael: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I get the hon. Gentleman's drift. He has to have regard to the very wide terms in which racial hatred is defined in paragraph 1 of the new schedule, which would catch most of the circumstances that he mentions.

Gordon Prentice: Since 2001, it has been possible for offences to be religiously aggravated. What discussion was there in Committee on that point?

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman can read Hansard for himself if he wants to know the answer to that direct question. There was discussion, and there is a clear distinction to draw. A religious aggravation would essentially always exist in the first place whether or not expressly provided for in statute, and I accept that that has been quite effective. That is a very different thing, however, from the introduction of the concept of incitement to religious hatred as an offence per se. That distinction between the offence per se and the aggravation is an important one to bear in mind.
	I am mindful that others wish to contribute and do not wish to take up too much of the House's time. I wish, however, to say a few words about the other amendments.
	On new clause 4, I was interested in the views of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase. He clearly comes at the point from a direction similar to that from which my hon. Friends and I come. I wonder whether his term offensive language is essentially different from the insulting language that is already part of the Public Order Act 1986. I wonder, indeed, whether there might be some practical considerations there. In broad terms, however, if this were an earlier debate on an amendment, I would have little difficulty with it.
	The question of the various definitions of religion provided, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, a tremendously interesting andat timesentertaining discussion in Committee. All that the hon. Gentleman really does here is highlight further the nonsense in the Government's position and the difficulties that arose when they embarked on the position that they have insisted on taking.
	Finally, the amendments that would effectively introduce a crime of intent are interesting and should have been considered much earlier. That would be an important protection against the erosion of free speech, which concerns us. However, we have been round that course already, and I fear that those amendments will have little more joy than most of the others we have pursued today.

Chris Bryant: It was a delight to hear earlier from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that he has achieved a new degree of realism in his approach. I note that one of his amendments is subtly different from one he tabled in Committee. In trying to define religion, his previous amendment said that one of the groups that should not be covered included those who were believers in the supremacy or superiority of one gender over another. He has ditched that point in his new amendment, so I am not sure whether he now believes that those people should have protection under the law because he subscribes to that view himself, or whether he is just trying to steer clear of today's debate in the General Synod of the Church of England.

Dominic Grieve: I suppose that I have to admit that I tabled that amendment in Committee slightly tongue in cheek. When I came to define the terms for the purposes of Report, I thought that I ought to try to identify those who might be generally thought to be people whom individuals would dislike. I do admit that the gender issue is rather controversial in the context of the Christian practices of the Anglican faith, of which I am a member.

Chris Bryant: I have to say that I do not think that that is controversial at all. Men and women are equal. They should be equal under the law and, for that matter, in religion. We look forward to women being ordained as bishops and the Church agreeing to that. This, I know, strays some considerable way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the purpose of the Bill and the amendments before us.
	I start from the fundamental belief that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are intrinsic to the democracy in which we all want to live. I want to live in a society in which nobody feels cowed or timid in the expression of their freedom of speech or their freedom of religion. One of the points of debate here is that many of us on the Labour Benches perceive that not everybody in this country equally enjoys the right to express their religious belief, and to join in that belief by association with others. That is the problem that we are essentially trying to address.
	We believe that there is an injustice in the law as drafted, which allows protection, as many Members have mentioned, by race and, therefore sort of, by proxy, allows for those whose race and religion so overlap that the overlap is almost complete. Therefore, Hindus and Jews are allowed protection under the law

Simon Hughes: Sikhs.

Chris Bryant: Sorry; I mean Sikhs and Jews. They are allowed protection under the law, but many other groups are not.

Alistair Carmichael: rose

Evan Harris: rose

Chris Bryant: I have to choose between two Liberal Democrats, so I may get completely conflicting views.

Alistair Carmichael: It is not unusual for us to hear two conflicting views from the hon. Gentleman, and there is only the one of him. He misrepresents the position. The protection afforded to Jews and Sikhs is against racial hatred, not religious hatred, and that is provided only on the basis of the fact that one judgment took the view that they are monoethnic.

Chris Bryant: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that I say two different things because he does not listen as clearly as he might. That is, I think, precisely the point that I just made.

Evan Harris: I agree entirely with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

Chris Bryant: Well, we have achieved something here todaythe Liberal Democrats agree with one another. To be fair, there are many issues on which I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris).
	The point is well made that Sikhs and Jews were not originally afforded any protection under the law. Subsequently, by virtue of the overlapping of their racial and religious grouping, they have ended up receiving protection, not for their religion but by virtue of their race.

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman has, I think, misunderstood the law. The Bill says that incitement to racial hatred would be made unlawful, and defines that by reference to cultural groups, race and so forth. What case law did was to identify that, by definition, Jews, when subjected to incitement to racial hatrednot doctrinal or theological criticismwere covered. That is not something that they have gained; they were always covered, and case law has demonstrated it.

Chris Bryant: Consequently, Jews and Sikhs are protected under the law, not by virtue of their religion, but by virtue of their race, because there was a definition that that constituted their race. The hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) are trying to draw a very narrow distinction, on which, I think, we are all agreed. I am grateful to them for helping me to tease out the point.
	The important point we are trying to make is that the particular injustice that we believe exists under the law encourages racists to express their hatred and incite hatred in relation to people's religion rather than their race, even when their hatred would probably be directed against their race.
	I shall come to whether religion is something one chooses or something that is given and how one should address that question. It seems clear, however, that if it is possible to differentiate between the sin and the sinnerif, in other words, it is possible to hate the sin but love the sinnerit must surely be possible to hate a religious belief, or disagree intrinsically with it, yet still like, or indeed love, the person who holds that belief. Equally, it must follow that it is possible to protect the believer and leave the belief to fend for itself. That is what I believe the Bill will do.

Evan Harris: I have raised this point when other Members were speaking, and it was first made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). Should it be possible, even if it is not the style of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) or me, to urge people to hate homophobic religious bigots? In the example of Christian fundamentalists, that could be urging people to hate the people not the belief. Should that be made a criminal offence?

Chris Bryant: I do not think that that example entirely falls within the ambit of the Bill, and it should not do so. The point was raised earlier that many would debate whether someone's sexuality is a fixed or chosen aspect of their life. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon shrugs his shoulders, but that is a material consideration because many people have advanced the argument that the law is not good enough because one does not choose one's race but one does choose one's religion. The point that many Labour Members would make is that the percentage of people who actively choose their religion is remarkably small. One of my hon. Friends pointed out earlier that people can change their religion, but I still believe that just as it is wrong to judge somebody on the basis of the colour of their skin or their genderor, for that matter, their sexualityit is wrong and just as irrational to judge somebody, or think of them as a lesser person, on the basis of their religion.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman fails to say why political belief should not fall into that category. Tony Benn, the former MP for Chesterfield, famously said that he was born in the Labour party and he will die in the Labour party. If people can be born into a religious belief, can they not also be born into a political belief? Why is that not covered in the Bill?

Chris Bryant: That is rather the point that I was trying to make. I do not think that we need to stray down that route, and nor should we stray down the route of incitement to homophobia, although some of the most offensive and insulting material that I have ever seen was from some Christian organisations in relation to homosexuality. Some of the views espoused by, for example, Belfast Pride, which pretends to support homosexuality but in fact viciously attacks it, are very unfortunate.

Evan Harris: Leaving homophobia aside, the hon. Gentleman says that he is happy that we should hate religious bigotry, but that it is not his style to say that we should hate religious bigots. That is fine, but should it be criminal for other people who do not share his style to say that we should hate extreme religious bigots? Should it be criminal to do so?

Chris Bryant: I am saying that it is possible to differentiate between the belief and the believer. It is also possible to differentiate between merely saying some words that other people might find offensive and deliberately seeking to incite other people to hate a group of people by virtue of their religious association. The latter is irrational and wrong and the law should criminalise it. That is why, broadly speaking, I support the Bill.

Lynne Featherstone: The distinction between the belief and the believer depends on the person making the distinction. A good person with love in their heart will be capable of hating the belief and loving the believer. But if a person has hate in their heart, they will be unable to do so.

Chris Bryant: I am hesitant to start talking about good people and bad people. I remember when Jesus was described as good and he asked why he was being called good, because there was only one who was good. It is not helpful to go down that route when considering these amendments.

Tony Wright: I was troubled by the last intervention and I wish to pin my hon. Friend down on the issue if I can, because it goes to the heart of worries about the Bill. I want to be able to say that I hate religious bigots and religious bigotry. I want to go around urging other people to hate religious bigots and religious bigotry. Why am I to be prevented from doing that, as the Bill suggests?

Chris Bryant: Far be it from me to stop my hon. Friend doing anything. It seem to me that it is wrong to go out on the street and incite people to hate others because they are Muslims. We know that that is happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) said in his maiden speech, on Second Reading, that people used to call him a Paki, but now they accuse him of being a Muslim, in a very derogatory way. Such behaviour should be caught under the Bill.

John Grogan: Would not the example that my hon. Friend gives be covered by new schedule 1? In our manifesto, which I carry with me at all times, we promised that we would give people of all faiths the same protection against incitement to hatred on the basis of their religion. Could it not be argued that the Lord Lester amendment fulfilled that commitment?

Chris Bryant: We have had that conversation in Committee and this evening.
	I tabled amendment No. 11 for a specific reason to do with the performance of plays. I said earlier that I believed that we should have as great a degree of freedom of speech in this land as is commensurate with others enjoying their rights to express their religion. Therefore, we should have a high hurdle for an offence to be committed in the production and performance of a play. For instance, many people might advance the argument that parts of The Merchant of Venice are offensive and insulting to Jews or Christians. Indeed, an individual production of that play could be extremely offensive and insulting to one of those religions. The character Barabas, in a play from a similar period, The   Jew of MaltaI apologise to members of the Committee who have heard this beforesays:
	I have been zealous in the Jewish faith,
	Hard-hearted to the poor, a covetous wretch,
	That would for lucre's sake have sold my soul.
	Some might believe that putting on a play that portrays Jews as covetous and hard-hearted to the poor would fall foul of this Bill, so it is important that we ensure that no one would do so by putting on a production of The Jew of Malta.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that a high test is necessary, but does he agree that being hated, on its own, does not prevent anyone from going about their lawful business? It may be an unpleasant phenomenon to be hated, but unless that hatred is translated into overt acts of discrimination, hostility or violence, it is just one of those things that people have to face. Is not that the issue that we have to consider?

Chris Bryant: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in one sense, in that if there were to be a law preventing people from inciting hatred of politicians, we would be in a right mess. The point that the Opposition would not accept in Committeealthough we advanced it on several occasionswas that whereas some people might want an offence to be committed only if the incitement led directly to acts of violence, many of us think that if someone incites hatred of a group of other people, they increase the likelihood of violence towards them even if the relationship is not directly provable. That is the element of the tide of hatred that we want to wash further back down the shore. I accept, however, that many hon. Members think that that is impossible and that the Bill will not achieve that.
	My point about the performance of plays is that the National Theatre might want to put on a play about incitement to religious hatred. A young woman from the east end of London might write a play that articulated in strong and effective fashion her profound dislike of what Islam had done to her family and her community, or she might point to some of the disagreements within the Muslim community in the east end of London. The director of the National Theatre should have every right to put on such a play. However, if the head of the British National party presented a play with similar themes to the National Theatre, I hope that the director would take a different attitude and would consider whether, in the circumstances, that might be an incitement to religious hatred.

Patrick Cormack: Would the hon. Gentleman's amendment extend to the classroom or the lecture theatre, so that teachers of literature can analyse the sort of play about which he is talking? Would the freedom he wants to give the stage extend to the academic world?

Chris Bryant: I am about to come on to some complex aspects of the Bill's wording. So far, I have deliberately looked only at the performance of plays, but many people have advanced arguments that the freedom of expression should extend in other ways. Section 20 of the Public Order Act 1986 refers exclusively to plays, which is why, because the Government want to amend that, I have introduced an amendment on the point.

David Winnick: My hon. Friend referred to The Merchant of Venice. I believe that the play is anti-Semitic, although Shakespeare did not intend that when he wrote it. However, it reflected the ingrained anti-Semitism in Christianity that has, I hope, been seriously undermined in the years since the holocaust. It is interesting that no attempt has ever been made under the provisions of the incitement to race hatred laws to stop a production of the playrightly, because any attempt to do so would be ridiculous.

Chris Bryant: That is precisely the point that I was about to make. As far as I am aware, there has been no instance of the Public Order Act being used against the performance or production of a play. The definition of play specifically includes improvised performances, which is why the Act includes an explicit defence for a director who might not realise that particular words might be spoken or used.
	The Government want to change part of the original Act, and it is that change that I want to question. I am worried that the hurdle set in that measure will be lowered by the Government's change. Is the hurdle high or low, as constructed at present? To prove that there has been an offence, there must have been threatening, abusive or insulting language or behaviour as part of the play. That is moderated in the original Act by the defence that the producer or director did not know and had no reason to suspect, that the offending words were threatening, abusive or insulting.
	The second point that must be proved is intent. It is of course much easier to prove intent in some forms of the criminal law than in others. It is much more difficult in the cases covered by the Bill. If someone thrusts a knife into another person's chest, one can assume that he intended to kill the other person. In a case where certain words are said or used, it is not so easy to prove intent. Consequently, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield pointed out, there is a second likely limb under the 1986 Act, which is that
	having regard to all the circumstances (and, in particular, taking the performance as a whole) racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
	That is what the Government want to change.
	I believe that the Government's change will lower the hurdle in the second proposed subsection. The hurdle for the offence would be extremely low if it was that any person who might come into the theatre might be incited to religious hatred. Indeed, the person might already have religious hatred in their heart, which would be highly problematic. However, I assume that that is not what the Government intend; they intend the provision to apply to a person who is reasonable, yet if the test was whether a reasonable person might be incited to religious hatred the difficulty is clear, as most of us in the Chamber would say that no reasonable person could be incited to religious hatred.
	It is unclear what the Government are hoping to catch by the change. I understand that they want to keep the likely limb as nearly identical as possible for each section of the 1986 Act. I understand their argument, but I do not accept that, with reference to material that might be published or posted outside someone's house, or words that might be said, the provision does not need a definition of the audience. At the public performance of a play, the audience is predetermined; people have paid for their tickets to go to the theatre to see the play. I worry that the Government are lowering the hurdle by creating an unnecessary offence in relation to the production of plays. The situation could be better clarified by the change that I suggestedgoing back to the provisions of the original 1986 Act in relation to plays.

David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I was just about to stop, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

David Heath: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will carry on because he is doing an extremely good job of demolishing the internal logic of the Bill. Indeed, if the Government do not accept his amendment, I strongly suggest that he votes against the Bill on Third Reading. However, I cannot understand why he limits the difficulties that he has exposed to plays and not to the other spheres that the rest of us recognise pose equal difficulties for the wording of the Bill.

Chris Bryant: It is because the change to the likely limb in each of the other clauses will have a different effect from the change to the likely limb in section 20. If the hon. Gentleman looks closely at section 20, he will see that I am right.
	There are plenty of hedges around the offence relating to the production and performance of plays, not least the defence that the wider context of the play must be borne in mind. That is why the Minister will probably tell me that the director of the National Theatre has every freedom to produce plays such as The Jew of Malta or The Merchant of Venice, or a play written by a young Muslim woman from the east end of London that exposes problems in her community that she believes have stemmed from Islam. Such a play might even show some very unpleasant aspects of Islam, as she sees it, and might even include language that was extremely aggressive, threatening, abusive or insulting to Islam, because some of the characters might have to present such attitudes for the presentation to be effective. Indeed, many people might find elements of the novel Brick Lane by Monica Ali, if put on stage, offensive, insulting and so on.   The wider context of a play must be borne in mind under the Bill. Intent must be borne in mind, and I believe that the Government are weakening the likely limb unnecessarily. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some comfort in his reply.

Gary Streeter: It occurs to me that the longer we go on discussing this group of amendments, the less clear it is exactly what will and what will not be caught by the Bill. One of my fundamental problems with the legislation is that, unless it is amendedI shall discuss some of the specific amendments very briefly in a momentand if it passes into law in its current form, I believe that we are in danger of stoking up difficulties between various communities. There is such uncertainty about what the Government intend and such uncertainty about what is and is not caught that the Bill will not help community relations and is likely to inflame them.
	The Government have chosen their Minister with great care. He has been extremely courteous throughout the proceedings that we have enjoyed together. He is obviously a very reasonable man. He is, quite honestly, the right face to introduce legislation of this kind, but I can imagine the tactics meeting at the Home Office after the Bill's consideration in Committee, bearing in mind the lobbying that was going on, and I can imagine the Minister saying, Look, we've got to give way on something in the Bill. Let's find the smallest possible amendment that we can concede, and we'll completely block the rest. What the Minister has done successfullyI welcome the concession that was made in the previous group of amendments, which, of course, I will not discuss nowis to deal with the speck of sawdust, leaving the plank lying in the middle of the Chamber for us all to trip over. Unless one of the amendments in this group is accepted, I do not think that the Bill will become law; nor should it.
	A number of excellent points are made in many of the amendments, which I should like to touch on briefly. I will be mercifully brief. I am a very fair-minded person, so I want to touch first on new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the broad thrust of which I support. However, the word tone worries me slightly. I can imagine occasions on which the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) could be in his pulpit and expounding a very important religious doctrine, of course, very reasonably indeed, but perhaps in a tone that might fall foul of my hon. Friend's new clause.
	I certainly support new clause 4, which would provide the kind of balance that we are looking for in the Bill. At the moment, it is not clear that the Government do not intend to clamp down on the kind of religious freedoms, discussions, discourse and even the kind of cynical lampoonery that I do not often enjoy and often find distasteful when poked at other people, other religions, other political parties and so on, but that is none the less an important part of a healthy democracy. New clause 4 has a lot to commend it, and if the Government cannot go all the way and accept new schedule 1, I hope that they will at least look seriously at new clause 4.
	I think it particularly important that proposed new paragraph (3) in new schedule 1, or something like it, be incorporated into the Bill, because it gets to the heart of the matter. Why were 2,000 reasonable people outside Parliament campaigning against the Bill earlier today? I am not sure whether they are still there. Why have we been lobbied so extensively on the Bill by a lot of people who do not normally take the trouble to write to their Member of Parliament or to come to see us at our surgeries? Why is that happening? It is happening because a lot of genuine, decent people, many of whom hold their own religious beliefs very passionately and sincerely, are very scared indeed that the Bill will in some way curtail their freedom of religious belief and religious expression. They fear that the Bill, cloaked in uncertainty, will in some way undermine their ability to preach their gospel, to expound their faith and to contrast and compare other religious beliefs freely, sincerely and passionately. That is why people are demonstrating in Parliament square today, and it is why we have received so much lobbying. No matter how many ministerial assurances we receive, we have all heard them before. Ministers come and Ministers go. Unless we place something in the Bill that makes it abundantly clear that that is not what the Government are seeking to do, the Bill will not attract widespread support, and it will be poor law.
	Even if the Minister cannot accept new schedule 1 or part of it, I hope that the Government will be able to introduce in another place an amendment, drafted by experienced parliamentary draftsmen, that deals with the substance of proposed new paragraph (3) in new schedule 1. I am repeating myself so that the Minister, who is returning to his place, absolutely understands that we must have something in the Bill that gives comfort and reassurance, as well as legal protection, so that people from all faiths in this country are free to expound their faiths in the years to come.
	I enjoyed what has been said about amendment No.   9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. It is very important to discuss what we mean by a religion. We had a bit of a discussion about Satanistswe do not often do so in the Houseduring our proceedings in Committee. I should like to ask the Minister whether he thinks that Satanism is a religion. He many want to leap to his feet to intervene now; he may want to deal with that in his winding-up speech. He is itching to move. I think that he is about to intervene, and here he goes.

Paul Goggins: I will intervene if only to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having to leave the Chamber for a short period. Given the considerable discussion that we had in Committee, he knows that it has never been the job of Parliament to define in statute what is and what is not a religion. We have left that to the courts, and it is right that we do so because a religion may change over time.

Gary Streeter: I am so pleased that the Minister replied as he did, because it seems to be absolute and utter evidence for the fact that we are legislating completely in the dark. We do not know what we are trying to stop and what we are not trying to stop. We do not even know what a religion is. The Minister who is responsible for introducing the Bill cannot tell the House today whether or not Satanismthe worship of the devilis a religion in this country.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman leaps a few steps further, because he will also know from the discussions that we had in Committee that we do not just leave such things to the courts in a haphazard way. The courts take their responsibility very seriously. We have Strasbourg case law, as he knows, which requires a religion to have a level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and to be worthy of respect in a democratic society, and in the case of Campbell and Cosans, to be compatible with human dignity. Some of the so-called religions in amendment No. 9 fall well short of that description.

Gary Streeter: So is Satanism a religion or not? It is no good the Minister giving me the empty theory. I ask him a practical question that could well come before a court one day, and he cannot answer it.

Dominic Grieve: I am surprised to hear that the Minister cannot answer that question because a Departmentthe Ministry of Defencesaw fit to recognise the Satanist worship practices of a seaman on one of Her Majesty's ships and to provide him with a cupboard in which to keep his paraphernalia for his worship. So in those circumstances, I should have thought that, unless the Minister wishes to disown the Ministry of Defence, he has already indicated that the Government take the view that Satanism is a religion.

Gary Streeter: Exactly my point. We are legislating blindfold. We are trotting through a minefieldperhaps galloping through oneand unless the Minister can give us reassurance and clarity in the Bill, it is destined for difficulty.
	I should like to conclude on this group of amendments by saying that we all support the Government's desired outcome. We want to live in a tolerant and free society, where any member of a religion, even one currently under pressure, has the freedom to express their belief. People should not be persecuted, hassled, bullied, abused or assaulted because of their religious beliefs. However, I believe that the existing law is satisfactory to give adequate protection to people who adhere to those religions at the moment.
	I believe that a more robust approach by the Crown Prosecution Service and the police in every locality where allegations of abuse and victimisation are made is the solution to any such problem. The Minister and the Government have never been able to justify with examples why they have introduced the Bill. Uncertainty and lack of clarity is written through every line. Unless an amendment is included in the Bill to make it clear that we will still enjoy religious freedom in this country when the Bill is enacted, it should not pass into law. The Minister ought to support one of these amendments.

David Winnick: I have one or two concerns that are more or less expressed in new clause 4, but if I had any doubts in my mind about the necessity for this measure they would be overruled by the present situation. Clearly, at a time whenthis has unfortunately already occurred over the weekendsome hate-mongers are trying to brand the whole Muslim community as being responsible for the atrocities that occurred last Thursday, the law needs to be changed to provide protection.
	I understand some of the concernsI shall express one or two myselfbut when I listen particularly to Opposition Members telling us what frightful consequences will occur, it reminds me, as I have mentioned before, that when we were dealing with incitement to race hatred almost 40 year ago, we were repeatedly told that the law was all right as it stood, that civil liberties should not be undermined by what was proposed, and that free speech was absolutely essential. I come back to this point: as a result of what was passed nearly 40 years ago against a good deal of opposition, are we less free as a country? Have our civil liberties been undermined? Have special privileges been given to any particular minority, be that Jewish or Hindu? It is nonsense to suggest that that is the case, so I make the point that some of the fears about the Bill are irrational. They are no more likely to come about than anything that was predicted as a result of the legislation passed in the 1960s.

Philip Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although one can stop people saying things that one does not like, one cannot stop them thinking things that one does not like? There were no British National party councillors anywhere in the country in 1997, but there are 20 in 2005, a fifth of whom are in the Bradford district. The Bill will add to the burden of political correctness in this country that causes people to think that they cannot say things. It will thus create a recruiting sergeant for the BNP because people will think that if they cannot speak out freely, the only way in which they can express their view is by voting for nasty, horrible parties such as the BNP.

David Winnick: If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about fascism in whatever guise it takesthe National Front, the BNP and all the other riff-raff and detestable rubbish who want to incite as much hatred as possible against various ethnic minoritiesI invite him to campaign vigorously against fascism in his constituency and join the national campaign. If he wants to be more actively involved in fighting fascism, as he should be, Searchlight, an anti-fascist magazine, will give him and his colleagues every assistance.
	I do not understand the difference that some hon. Members have cited between race and religion. We are told that we cannot change our racewell, we know that we cannot do that even if we wish to do so. Disraeli remained Jewish no matter how much he adhered to the Christian religion. Race is race. Obviously, when it came to systematic mass murder, the Nazis did not go round asking whether people believed in a religion or notthey would murder them. If the second world war had had a different outcome, my family and I would certainly have been murdered by the time I reached 11.
	Although I understand these matters, I do not think that there is such a clear distinction. I do not have any religious beliefs or affiliations. Although it is true in a way that there is a difference between race and religion, anyone who is born into a religion does not lightly give it up. People are indoctrinated by their parents, and that happens in all religions. Some of us decide to leave religions later in life, but the majority of people are keen to remain affiliated to a religion when it comes to marriage or their wishes when they die, even if they do not adhere to the religion. I do not think that there is the clear distinction that some hon. Members wish to draw. They suggest that there is a sheer, clear divide between race and religion, but people are born into a religion, remain in a religion and are often persecuted because of that religion. We should try to avoid making a clear-cut distinction that is not really real.

Mark Pritchard: Religion is of course a matter of choice, rather than a matter of birth. Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an example of a situation involving religious hatred that could not be dealt with already by existing Public Order Acts and would thus require the Bill? I think that he will struggle to do so, because the Government Front-Bench team has struggled for weeks to give a single example of a situation to explain why the Bill is needed to replace anything already on the statute book.

David Winnick: To a large extent, the hon. Gentleman is putting forward arguments that were made almost word for word 40 years ago. If he goes to the Library at some stage and looks up those debates, he will find that his predecessors on the Conservative Benchesalthough very few Labour Memberssaid what he is saying word for word.

Mark Pritchard: rose

David Winnick: I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
	Why are the Government introducing the Bill? The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) seemed to suggest that it was purely a cynical move to get Muslim votes, but I do not believe that that is the case at all. The Government might be misguided and mistaken, but that is not my view. Unlike what happened nearly 40 years ago, the Bill might not be successful, but the Government have the genuine motive of trying to protect the interests of a group of people who have been harassed because of their religion. The Government believe that those people should have the same protection as that given to Jews and Hindus.
	I now turn to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). Despite what I have just saidI hope that this does not contradict what I have just said in any wayI want the Government to make it clear, even if they cannot do so in the Bill, that if the Bill is passed into law, as I hope it will be, we will not find ourselves in a position in which it will not be possible to criticise religion. I do not want that situation to arise and I hope that Home Office Ministers share my sentiments. Rowan Atkinson has made some valid points. I understand his concerns that there might be a danger that the sort of material often used by artists like him could be declared unlawful as a result of the Bill.

Chris Bryant: Has Rowan Atkinson really made any decent points on this? If his reading of the legislation were correct, the Public Order Act 1986 would have prevented Jim Davidson from making most of the jokes that he has made for the past 20 years, but it certainly has not.

David Winnick: No doubt my hon. Friend is right. However, it is essential that the criticism of religion does not become unlawful in any way. I am reminded of the film Life of Brian, which some found amusing, although those Christians who were deeply religious probably did not. I would not want such a film to be prohibited. I want a situation in which other religionswhy should it be only the Christian religion?could be subject to the same sort of criticism and ridicule. I doubt whether Life of Brian undermined the faith of Christians in any way; their faith, and especially that of strong believers, was unlikely to be undermined by a film.

Dominic Grieve: I share the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, but the current wording of the Bill implies that Life of Brian or any other lampoon might be criminalised. It only needs to be established that a lampoon is viewed as insulting in the minds of the people being lampooned. Once that trigger has been passed, if the material is likely to be heard by people who are likely, on that basis, to be incited to the hatred of a person's religion, the offence is established in law, so only the Attorney-General stands between the lampoon and prosecution.

David Winnick: Ministers have disputed that and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's assertion is not the case. However, I would not be making a speech if I did not have some worries and reservations, because it is pretty obvious that I strongly support the Bill and think that it is necessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not consider it offensive if I say this, but although I could be wrong, I think that I remember his late father, who was a distinguished Member of the House, criticising the measure about which I have already spoken, so perhaps he is following his father. [Interruption.] I am sure that it is a distinguished tradition.
	I tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the concerns that I am expressing as a supporter of the Bill will undoubtedly be expressed by some in the House of Lords who do not support it. I thus think that it would be appropriate to find words to make it even clearer than it is at present that the Bill will not make the criticism or ridicule of religion unlawful in any way and that the Rowan Atkinsons and material such as Life of Brian can go on. That is important. If it were otherwise, ammunition would be given to the critics. Those who are now so critical would say, We were right, and I do not want them to be right. Instead, I want this measure to be successful. If it is to be successful, the concerns that have been raised by supporters of the Bill, such as myself, should be met.

Evan Harris: I support new schedule 1 and amendment No. 1, the paving amendment, which we have indicated that we would want to see pressed to a Division unless the Minister says that he is prepared to accept it. I hope that there will be a vote on amendment No. 1.
	Given what has been said by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), it is important to recognise that there is little difference in motivation between many of us on both sides of the House, including those Labour Members, who have a proud history of seeking to combat racial discrimination and incitement to racial hatred. I understand that some Labour Members represent constituencies where they see similar things happening in the name of religion and that, therefore, there is a need to tackle the problem. I recognise that their motivation, and that of the Government, is in this respect entirely legitimate.
	I hope that it is understood, when choosing between the Government's form of the Bill and the form of the Bill that would be established by the introduction of new schedule 1 and the consequential amendments, that we are talking about a difference in the way of dealing with the matter and how we find the balance between tackling the mischief that is abroad in societyattacking individuals and groups of individuals, and inciting hatred against them on the one hand, and the need to protect freedom of expression from the criminal law and from investigation and near prosecution by the prosecuting authorities and the police, and from the need to self-censor to a far greater degree than is currently the case.
	I hope that I pass what I think should be the Gorton test. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) made a point that, no doubt from his perspective, he felt was fair. He said:
	The problem with interventions by Conservative Members is they are totally unrepresentative of the population as a whole in that hardly any of them are open to the kind of humiliation that many members of our communities are open to. If they were, they would not be criticising this legislation.[Official Report; 21 June 2005, vol. 435, col. 674.]
	I have been subject to anti-Semitic attack, physical and verbal. Given what the hon. Member for Walsall, North has said, I should point out that for 20 years, if not longer, I have subscribed to Searchlight, a magazine that has kept these matters afloat through the difficult eras and the healthy eras. I hope that Labour Members do not take the view that there may be some on the Opposition BenchesI do not make the case but it has been made by otherswho do not feel strongly about the issues of hatred that we have been discussing. That does not apply to those who support new schedule 1 as a different way of dealing with these matters.
	I thought that it would be useful, in support of the new schedule, to consider the record of debates in the House to identify whether there is misunderstanding of the Bill, which is one of the fears that many of us have. Many of those who support the Bill, as opposed to the new schedule, perhaps, believe that it is doing something that it is not doing. I would argue that there are other laws that deal with the problems that they have identified. Perhaps, there is the problem that the new schedulethe Lester amendmentdoes not tackle the problems. It is important that we consider what has been said, especially by Labour Members, although I do not necessarily allege that all such Members misunderstand these matters or that there is misunderstanding elsewhere.
	The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton referred in an intervention to
	the case of Mrs. Shahzada, a constituent of mine who went to a shop in central Manchester soon after 9/11. She wears a veil over her face, and the shopkeeper refused to serve her because she was, to his perception, a Muslim. That was hatred against an individual, not a criticism of Islam.[Official Report; 21 June 2005, vol. 435, col. 674.]
	That was discrimination. The Equality Bill, which is in the House of Lords, will deal with that discrimination. Whether it was motivated by hatred is immaterial. It should be unlawful and the Liberal Democratsparticularly Lord Lesterhave argued that that sort of discrimination should have been outlawed some time ago. Measures to deal with that were proposed, but they were opposed by the Government.
	In a further intervention on the Home Secretary thehon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr.   Starkey) referred to the play Behzti. The hon. Lady urged the Home Secretary to
	remind the House that if that play attacks any community, it is the Sikh community, which is of course already covered by existing law, as is the Jewish community.[Official Report; 21 July 2005, vol. 345, col. 674.]
	That misunderstands the fact and the circumstances of the play, even if we accept that Jews and Sikhs are somehow already protected from incitement to religious hatred, which they are not. There is no such offence as religious hatred, and that did not touch on the Behzti offence.
	The Government's argument in favour of their legislation and against new schedule 1, is that there is a loophole. The discussion has taken place and it seems strange that it has not been understood. Current law protects certain people from incitement to racial hatred. That is not incitement to religious hatred. I can read the definition of racial hatred in the Public Order Act 1986. It talks about nationality, culture, race and so forth. Case law has stated that, for the sake of argument, if someone is being anti-Semitic, they will therefore be covered, potentially, by incitement to racial hatred. Case law does not state that if the attack is solely doctrinal and solely theological, Jews and Sikhs will be protected on the basis of incitement to religious hatred. There is no such offence.
	If we are worried about the loophole or the unfairness in the practice of the law, we need to determine whether, if there is incitement to racial hatred directed against a group of Muslims, they would be covered. At best, it could be argued that the law is unclear, although I understand that there is a pending prosecution in circumstances that might fit that case. However, the Lester amendment makes the issue explicit so that it would be seen clearly by both the perpetrators and the victims that they are protected and that if racists seek to hide behind words like Muslims instead of words such as Pakis, which is what they are said to be doingI have no doubt that they arethat would be covered. I would argue that that deals with the current problem. I say that from the perception of someone who finds such racial attacks to be anathema.
	I hope that that is accepted by those on the Government Benches, including Ministers, who are careful about their words. When they talk about the loophole, they say that Jews and Sikhs are protected against hatred. They know that they cannot say that they are protected against religious hatred. They are not, because such an offence does not exist. Ministers know also that, if Jews and Sikhs are protected against racial hatred, which is what they are protected against as a group, that will open the door to easier understanding of what the Lester amendment seeks to do. The Minister has to explain and acceptI hope that he willthat Jews and Sikhs are not protected against incitement to religious hatred and that that understanding has not been grasped by many Members of this place, including those who have contributed to the debate.
	In the infamous column 674 of Hansard, the hon. Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) raises the question of homosexuality and whether incitement to hatred on the basis of homosexuality should be covered. That was a point made in an intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). On two bases I would argue that there is a stronger case for introducing a law against incitement to homophobic hatred. First, homosexuality is innate and not chosen and secondly there is far more of such hatred going on. It is second only to incitement to religious hatred, which is not racial hatred. I cannot understand why, if the Government are seeking to deal with a social problem and incitement to hatred, they have not dealt with homosexuality either at the same time or before.
	On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) expressed concern that hatred was not defined closely enough. At column 677, he said to the Home Secretary:
	Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the element of hatred is clearly defined when the Bill is considered in Committee? That will reassure people with genuine concerns, as the Bill must be tightly drawn to ensure that people retain total freedom of speech in respect of these matters.
	The Home Secretary replied:
	I am happy to give the commitment that my hon. Friend seeks. In Committee, we will look at any proposal aimed at providing a tighter definition of hatred in the Bill.[Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 677.]
	The hon. Member for Loughborough was seeking a commitment to make a better definition, not to look at a proposal. However, I understand that there were no such amendments in Committee. Hatred was not defined more closely as requested, so another group in the House will not have gained reassurance.
	The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) made what everyone acknowledges was an impressive maiden speechbecause it was a maiden speech, no one sought to intervenein which he made the case for new schedule 1 and the Lester amendment. He said that at school he was beaten up by a gang of skinheads because, to use his words,
	we were all seen as 'Pakis' and we were all fair game.
	He went on to say that the world has changed, and if he
	was surrounded by a gang of 20 thugs from Combat 18 telling me that I am going to die, it is because I am a Muslim. [Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 703.]
	I do not believe that Combat 18, the vile British National party or the National Front, and their particularly odious band of followers are making a theological point when they attack Muslims, particularly those who appear to them to be members of a racial group. Attacking and harassment are not the subject of the Bill, but there is no doubt that that is a racial offence. I find it hard to understand why the hon. Gentleman, who clearly has great insight into the situation, should seek to argue that the offence is based on incitement to religious hatred.
	The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who did not accept interventionscertainly not from megave an example at column 709 which demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Bill and of the alternative proposed in new schedule 1:
	If one were to publish a leaflet saying, 'We don't want Jews living round here, let's drive them out', it would be caught under a section of our existing legislation that would not catch the same act if the word 'Jews' were replaced by the word 'Muslims'.[Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 709.]
	I simply do not believe that to be the case under existing legislation and certainly not under new schedule 1. Those motivations are not theological or doctrinal but racial. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman made that point when he discussed whether certain groups of Semites would be protected if they were Jewish from anti-Semitismwhich I would call a form of racial hatredbut not if they were Muslim. I believe that they would be so protected under the current law and that that protection would be made even clearer by new schedule 1. If senior Government Back Benchers do not recognise the key issues at stake in the Bill, the outside world will find it difficult to do so, and there will be many calls for prosecution, which would be inappropriate.
	At column 721, another example of a common misunderstanding, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Ms Thornberry), who spoke often on Second Reading and, indeed, in Committee, said:
	I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example. A young lady on her way to the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson school is on the bus with her head covered. A man starts shouting at her and abusing her because she is a Muslim. That abuse results in an assault on her by a gang of boys, who know not only that she is a Muslim, but that she is white and has converted, which makes the situation worse. In normal circumstances, that man would get off scot-free.[Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 721.]
	The man who was shouting at that girl and abusing her because she was a Muslim would not get off scot-free, because he would have committed a public order offence. If it is not incitement, it is an offence under section 4 or section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and, indeed, it is covered by the law on harassment. Such misunderstanding by hon. Members is fuelling calls for the Bill which, however, is flawed.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) made a good speech today. I read carefully the speech that he made on Second Reading, in which he argued that because people identify themselves on the basis of their religion, they should have protection from incitement to hatred on the same basis. The offence of incitement to racial hatred, however, is not dependent on the perception of the person against whom hatred is incited. The courts must judge whether the person committing the offence is inciting racial hatred, regardless of whether the person against whom it is committed and who may be a member of a racial group believes that it is because of their religion, gender, race or anything else. I can see the point that the hon. Member was careful to make, but he does not appear to recognise that the current law, particularly if new schedule 1 were accepted, protects people who define themselves according to their religion from incitement to racial hatred.
	The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) was another speaker who was not in the mood to accept interventions on Second Reading. At column 735 he claimed that there is a loophole and that Freedom, the British National party magazine, has explained it to its readers. He said:
	An article under the headline, 'Police drop a clanger' said that a supporter who repeatedly displayed a copy of an 'Islam out of Britain' poster in his window was arrested, questioned and charged with 'incitement to racial hatred'. The article continues:
	'The snag for the police, however, is that Muslims are not covered by anti-free speech race law . . . it's legal to say anything you want about Muslims, even far more extreme things'.
	In fact, that person was prosecuted successfully for committing a public order offence, which was deemed religiously aggravated. I understand that his appeal failed. Contrary to the impression that may have been left by the hon. Gentleman, who did not accept interventions, the full story is that the current law covers such situations. The hon. Gentleman continued:
	We are talking about hatred creating an atmosphere in which Muslim womenBritish women, some of them whitewearing a hijab or scarf are spat at, insulted, sworn at and even hit.[Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 737.]
	Those are already offences under the Public Order Act. To try to pray such outrageous occurrences in aid of the Bill does a disservice to the efforts of the police and prosecutors, who are seeking to use the existing public order offences.
	I shall make a few points in defence of new schedule 1, following the suggestions made by the Minister and others. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) argued that the Lester amendment creates a loophole that will help to tell racists that as long as they get doctrinal and theological they will be exempt. Any such mechanism would already be available, and the Lester amendment makes it clear that using religion as a pretext for racial hatred will not create a new loophole. If racists could suddenly become religious bodies without any vestige of literature or any other context that courts must consider when determining the offence of racial hatred and if they pursued hatred against people on the basis that they practised the Muslim faith, it would be incumbent on the Opposition to reconsider whether the legislation were necessary. At the moment, however, racists are raciststhey are not theologians.

Chris Bryant: I do not believe that the danger is that people will suddenly become theologians and start engaging in narrow exegesis of some great theological point in Islam, Catholicism or whatever. The problem is that the Lester amendment encapsulates precisely the problem that we already have, and perpetuates it. It will allow the existing loophole to continue, and will say to the Muslim community that we are not interested in whether they suffer attacks or not.

Evan Harris: I do not agree with any of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes and I do not understand[Interruption.]any of it, he says from a sedentary position. I do not understand how he can get any of that from the Lester amendment. There are many in the Muslim community who recognise what it does and are grateful for it. It makes it clear in law that racists cannot hide behind religious words to promulgate racial hatred. It makes it clear that racist Islamophobia is unlawful. Every time we legislate in this area, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North pointed out, there is a balance to be struck between freedom of speech and the need to tackle a social problem.
	We say that, if hatred is being incited against people on the basis of their religion, which will clearly not be considered by the court to be incitement to racial hatred using a religious pretextthat rules out all the activities of the BNP and the far right, for a startand that serious problems are being caused outwith that set of people and those motivations, we will need to re-examine the matter. However, the presumption in the House must be in favour of preserving free speech. Many of the argumentsnot all, because some people did not see that there was a problemaround the introduction of the measure were about the balance between free speech and the need to legislate. Simply because 30 or 40 years ago, when the measure was first introduced, some people thought that it went too farI believe that they were wrong then and that it did not go too far, because there was clear mischief that needed to be dealt withdoes not mean that the Government should have carte blanche to introduce any sort of law. We must discuss each measure on its merits and decide whether the need to preserve free speech has been met.
	That deals with the point that was raised in an intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who urged us and those on his own Front Bench to support a race law that covers only acts likely or liable to lead to other criminal offences. I see his point, and I see the need to balance free speech. The Liberal Democrats believe that the current race hate laws are appropriate for dealing with the problem, and that the freedom of speech which they restrict is not a freedom of speech worth defending. It is not rational to attack people on the basis of their race, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). It is right that we should have philosophical discussions about these matters, but in the end there is a balance. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that the Lester amendment tackles the problem out there, and therefore that it should be supported.
	My next point relates to the argument used by the Minister that, because the Attorney-General blocked only seven prosecutions, there is not really a problem. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield and others identified the problem that, in this and similar legislation, we are leaving it to the Attorney-General to decide what is and is not acceptable. One must have good reason for allowing that. The problem for people in the artistic and entertainment world is not just that the Attorney-General will allow them to be prosecuted, but that steps will be taken against them by the Crown Prosecution Service in building up the case to put to the Attorney-General and by the police. They may even be picked up for questioning or arrested.
	Complaints will be made against artists and entertainers and, as the Government accept in a letter to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who kindly gave me a copy, there will be restrictions on their ability to present their work. In a letter of 7 July from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), although under the letterhead of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), accepts that
	if a policeman decided that the circumstances warranted further investigation
	there is no Attorney-General in that decision
	then it is only right that the police ask those responsible for the conduct in question to discontinue it while an investigation takes place.
	That spells bankruptcy for that production if the producer has to pull it on the basis of complaints. We have seen that we live in a society where there is a propensity for complaints to be made. We saw it in the case of Jerry Springerthe Opera, and I fear that we will see it again if it goes to regional theatres, and we saw it in the case of Behtzi. The Minister should recognise that hiding behind the Attorney-General will not give people who wish to pursue their artistic freedom protection from censorship or from being taken off the air and the stage.

Chris Bryant: Can the hon. Gentleman name a single play that has fallen foul of the 1986 Act in that way?

Evan Harris: That is not the point. Hon. Members on both sides accept that we live in a climate where people with strong religious views are taking offence, and I am not surprised, given how strongly they feel about their beliefs. They are seeking to restrict the production and broadcasting of pieces of literature, of whatever merit. I accept that that should not come under the Bill, but there will be decisions for the police to make well before the matter comes to the Attorney-General. Given what we have seen, there may be many such offences. I hope that the Minister accepts that there will be a chilling effect because of calls for prosecution, investigations prior to prosecution and the actions of the CPS before the matter gets to the Attorney-General. I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with that point in his response.
	Finally, amendment No. 12 in my name inserts new section 23A headed Blasphemous words, etc., which states:
	For the purposes of determining whether an offence has been committed under sections 18 to 23, it is immaterial whether the words, behaviour, written material, public performance, recording or programme is blasphemous.
	I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment and respond to it at the end of the debate. It is regrettable that he has not taken the opportunity provided by the Bill to tackle the anomaly of the blasphemy law. I shall not repeat what I said about that on Second Reading. It would not be in order to talk about repeal of the blasphemy law, but I hope that the Minister will accept that there is an urgent need to make it clear in the Bill and generally that freedom of speech is paramount.
	Although Christians may be offendedthe blasphemy law applies only to Christiansit is wrong that the Government should be standing at the ramparts in this place or in another place to defend a law that is discriminatory, out of time and against the European convention on human rights. I do not understand why the Government, who have looked into the matter, have not felt able to table an amendment or repeal the measure to reassure people who fear that the Bill will be used to bring about the censorship of people who wish to say strong words about, for example, the Christian faith.
	I hope that the Minister will respond to the arguments that I and others have advanced, and that he will give comfort to those of us who recognise that there is a problem to be solved, and that amendment No. 1 and new schedule 1 are a far more satisfactory way of dealing with it.

Charles Hendry: I shall make a brief contribution on a particular aspect of amendment No. 9. In doing so, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for highlighting many of the flaws in a deeply inadequate Bill.
	It would be hard to find a more graphic list of groups that would cause people concern. The amendment refers to
	Satanists; . . .
	believers in the need for human sacrifice to propitiate a deity;
	believers in female genital mutilation to live in accordance with the rules of a religion;
	believers in violence as a means of proselytising a belief;
	believers in the divinely ordained supremacy of one race over another.
	The one that I skipped over was a reference to Scientologists. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that although Scientology may be very controversial, people who are Scientologists find it profoundly offensive to be included in that list. As he may be aware, Scientologists in this country are based in East Grinstead, which is just outside my constituency, and many hundreds of my constituents are Scientologists. They will be mystified by their inclusion in such a list, particularly as many other groups, such as those who practise voodoo, are not included.
	This debate has already caused Scientologists offence. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that
	it is . . . a dangerous organisation that preys on people with mental illness. [Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 681.]
	That is a characterisation that many people in my constituency would find peculiar and to which they would not relate.
	I am not familiar with the details of Scientology as a religion or as a set of beliefs, and having heard the Minister's comments earlier, it would be hard to decide on which side of that boundary it would fall. Those who practise Scientology would say that it is a religion, but many others would contest that. Undoubtedly, as human beings they do a great deal of good. I have seen for myself their project to take people away from drug addiction and their work to encourage methods other than medical technology and medicine to deal with children with conditions such as hyperactivity and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. I have heard of the work that they do in New York to work with firemen with respiratory diseases as a result of their involvement in the terror attacks of 11 September 2001. Many of us have seen the good work that they do in those areas and find it peculiar that they have been singled out for inclusion in this list.

Dominic Grieve: In selecting the list for debate here and in Committee, I tried to identify groups that might be regarded as controversial and for which some people have expressed intense dislike, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). It is there for the purposes of illustration and debate. I make no judgment on Scientology, which is a subject of which I know very little. The only judgment that exists in respect of Scientology suggests that it is not a religion at all, in which case it would not enjoy the protection of the Bill in any event.

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying those issues and for explaining more of the thinking behind the amendment. Certainly, as an organisation, Scientology has gone through serious hoops in terms of ensuring that it has the right to broadcast on television by satisfying the Independent Television Commission that it is not a cult. It is a not-for-profit organisation, and that is well recognised.
	The huge flaw in the Bill that my hon. Friend highlighted is the lack of a definition of religion. The Minister has set out certain guidelines that cover that, but it is not clear on which side of the boundary Scientology would fall. It is right and proper that we should have a debate about whether it is a religion, but the lack of clarity makes the Bill unworkable.
	I hope that when my hon. Friend considers the issues raised in this debate, he will understand why the inclusion of Scientology in the list has caused offence and take that into account.

Sammy Wilson: The hour is late, so I will be brief.
	As a new Member, I think that I am beginning to learn some of the tricks of this House. If the Government have a bad law they put up a nice Minister and hope that they can get it through. At the beginning of the debates in Committee, the Minister gave those of us who wanted changes to the Bill some hope when he said:
	we are prepared to engage and we are prepared to listen. Obviously, we would be foolish if we did not consider any sensible proposals that could improve the Bill.[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 28 June 2005; c. 4.]
	Having listened to the debates today and on Second Reading and read through the Hansard of the Committee proceedings, it is clear that this is a bad Bill and that even the Minister proposing it is not too sure what it is meant to do. Indeed, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who went through almost every exampleI counted them off as he did sothat was given as to why the Bill was needed, showing that such incidents can be dealt with by existing legislation. We are therefore left wondering what exactly the Bill is about.
	Even some supporters of the Bill, such as the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), are beginning to have doubts about it. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rhondda made the case when he said that he wanted certain changes made for theatres because the Government have lowered the level. If the Government have lowered the bar that makes it difficult for theatres to put on plays, has it not been raised for those who wish to proclaim their religion or to preach in church?

Chris Bryant: No.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says no, but the terminology is exactly the same. He was worried about the aspect of intent, which will also apply to people who preach in churches and express views about other people's religion. The hon. Member for Walsall, North also said that he wants some safeguards.
	The other reason why the Minister should consider accepting new schedule 1it is typical that such a sensible and pragmatic approach should be proposed by a Scotsmanis that all it would do is formalise the promises made by himself and by the Secretary of State. On Second Reading, when my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the Westminster confession of faith, the Secretary of State said:
	I think that I can give him the assurance for which he asks. Statements in the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer and other faith booksthe Koran for instanceare precisely that. They are not incitements to hatred.[Official Report, 21 June 2005, Vol. 435, c. 671.]
	At the end of the debate, he promised the House that the Bill would not place restrictions on freedom of speech, stop comedians telling jokes, or prevent people with strong views about religion from expressing their opinions. If that is so, why cannot the explicit terms in new schedule 1 be incorporated in the Bill? Since assurances have already been given in the House, surely new schedule 1 can be included to reassure those who fear that the measure will restrict the freedom of speech of those who want to express their religious views or tell jokes. Why will not the Government make the assurances explicit in the Bill by accepting new schedule 1?
	Leaving the Bill so open-ended will lead to bad law and malicious complaints to the police. That applies even with the safeguard of the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary announced the seven stages in any prosecution. However, the five stages before a complaint reaches the Attorney-General are sufficient to cause trauma and difficulties for people against whom malicious complaints have been made and when the police have started an investigation. The one sure way of not having to rely on the Attorney-General and of ensuring that we do not go down the road of people suffering the trauma of an unnecessary police investigation, which may never finish as a prosecution, is to provide explicitly in the Bill for the things that will not be included, as listed in new subsection (3) in new schedule 1, paragraph 2.
	The Under-Secretary should live up to the promise that he made at the beginning. He should listen, engage and accept a compelling argument.

Paul Goggins: The debate has been powerful and wide-ranging, not least the contribution of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). However, although the debate has been wide-ranging, four key issues were presented.
	The first key issue is freedom of speech, to which new schedule 1 and new clauses 2 and 4 are relevant. I do not dispute the honourable intentions of those who tabled the amendments. They want to include in the Bill an assurance that legitimate words and actions, in speech or in writing, in jokes or in preaching or proselytising religious belief are not caught. My candid assessment is that the amendments are either so weak that they add nothing substantial to the measure or they add so much that they create further loopholes.
	Let me give an example. New subsection (3) in paragraph 2 of new schedule 1 provides for four broad exceptions, which extremists could manipulate to avoid prosecution. We already know from evidence that the police have given us that extremists get round the existing race hate legislation by inciting hatred on the ground of religion. That places them outside the law. They know that and they manipulate it accordingly. If we include exceptions, such as those in subsection (3), we will create further loopholes. The Government believe that inciting hatred, on the ground of either race or religion, is wrong and that, whatever the context in which it occurs, it should be covered.
	It is true that we have not defined hatred in the Bill. Several hon. Members made a point about that. We are happy to accept the dictionary definition of intense dislike and enmity. Making an enemy of somebody is a high test but that has not been a problem when considering earlier legislation, for example, the Race Relations Act 1965, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Public Order Act 1986. They all refer to hatred but none defines it on the face of the legislation.
	It is worth acknowledging the aspect of new clause2 that acknowledges the gap between the religiously aggravated offences that we have created and the more serious offences of inciting violence or murder. New clause 2 accepts that, if
	the tone or content of such speech or expression is such as to constitute a justification for violent acts,
	it would be wrong. However, I stress to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that I cannot accept the new clause because it blurs into the serious offence of incitement to violence, which already exists. It would also omit a series of other behaviour, whereby hatred or inciting hatred may be intended. That would not be captured if we accepted new clause 2. I do not dispute that it was an honest effort but the threshold remains too high.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, although I am sorry that he cannot accept the amendment. I am troubled by the implication of that. It was said during the course of the debate that no one was trying to prevent people from hating others because they did not like their views or their religion, yet the Government persist in holding the view that someone might be able to hold a private hatred but that they cannot communicate it to someone else in order to persuade them to take the same viewpoint. I find that astonishingly illogical, and we ought to be anxious about that. If the mischief that we are trying to address is not inciting people to hatred so as to commit acts of violence, what the Bill is really saying is that people cannot communicate their own strongly held beliefs to others, even though that would not lead to violence.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman has made that point before. The simple point that I am making is that new clause 2 takes us far too close to incitement to violence, which already exists and is a more serious offence than the one that we are discussing here. New clause 2 is an honest attempt to bridge a gap that the Government have identified, but the threshold is too high.
	New clause 4 presents me with different problems. I am in no doubt whatever that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) is trying very hard to put clarification into the Bill. He sees that as helpful and wants to make it clear that material that
	criticises or ridicules or causes offence
	would not be caught. I believe that this is a genuine attempt to be helpful, but hatred is a very high test. It is certainly well above the tests involving criticism, ridicule, causing offence or even, in the words of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, criticising in vehement terms. None of these activities would be caught.
	The Home Secretary has stated on the face of the Bill that the legislation is compatible with the European convention on human rights, which of course enshrines a right to freedom of expression. That right is therefore built into the assurance that all the activities described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase are already covered. That is implicit in the Home Secretary's assurances on the ECHR. Indeed, on the two previous occasions on which the Joint Committee on Human Rights has considered this legislation, it has agreed that it is proportionate to the problem that has been identified. It has also said that the Home Secretary is right to say that the Bill is compliant with the ECHR.

Tony Wright: The Minister's argument is that some amendments are too weak and some are too strong, yet he accepts the desire across the House to place further reassurance in the Bill than currently exists. Will the Government therefore table a third way amendment at some point to address these difficulties and provide us all with the reassurance that we need?

Paul Goggins: I do not know whether a third way exists, but I have said throughout these debates that I continue to listen. Indeed, after we have voted on the Bill tonight, it will go to the other place, which will also have a go at scrutinising it. I say again to my hon. Friend that the assurances that he seeks are already built in to the Bill in the form of the guarantee of compliance with the European convention on human rights. I certainly do not want to go to the other extreme and include behaviour that would allow extremists a loophole through which they could escape. Even if no third way is to be found, I say to my hon. Friendas I said in Committeethat the drawing up of guidance on the way in which the legislation should be interpreted and implemented will be absolutely vital. I want to do that in a way that includes faith communities, people from the arts and others who have expressed concern about the Bill, so that their worries can be taken into account and they can be reassured as we develop the guidance that their fears are misplaced.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Minister tell the House when we, Members of the elected Chamber, will see the guidance? Why, having had the Bill's Second Reading, Committee and Report stages in such short compass, have the Government still not made available to the House such a significant part of their proposed operation of it? Is that satisfactory?

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman will know that guidance is not ordinarily made available until legislation has been passed into law. I am looking to see whether it might be possible to bring forward draft guidance. I can consider that in this instance because this is not a complex Bill in terms of length, number of clauses and so on. It is a very tightly defined Bill, so it might be possible to have some draft guidance. I am considering that at the moment. Obviously one would not ordinarily issue draft guidance, because legislation can change before it is enacted. That is the reason for not publishing draft guidance in many instances.

Gary Streeter: rose

Paul Goggins: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I need to cover three other points and to leave good time for the Opposition spokesman to respond.

Gary Streeter: Does the Minister recognise how unsatisfactory it is for him to come to the House and say that he will not include in the Bill wording that would reassure Members on both sides of the House, and that we should rely on guidance that we will not see before we legislate? That is not the way to make law.

Paul Goggins: Were that all that I was saying, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am saying that the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase are answered by the guarantees in the Bill of compliance with the European convention on human rights. I also say to Opposition Members who want to introduce a higher test and other provisions in their amendments that that would create loopholes that extremists could exploit, in their efforts to incite hatred, to get away with with impunity.

Emily Thornberry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Goggins: I have a tendency to give way whenever I am asked. I remind Members that I have three other points to which to respond.

Emily Thornberry: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the light of the terrible events last Thursday, the need for this Bill to be enacted swiftly becomes even more pressing, given the possibility of a rise in Islamophobia as a result?

Paul Goggins: My response is that this legislation is as important today as it was two weeks ago and a month ago. It is important that we put it on the statute book as soon as possible.
	The second issue raised by Opposition Members is theso-called Lester amendment. Let me begin by responding to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). I meant no disrespect at all in my comments about the noble Lord Lester in Committee. He spent a lifetime dealing with these issues and has made a huge contribution. What I shared with the Committee was that I found it difficult to understand, as I began to think seriously about the Bill, how somebody who had such a reputation could bring forward a proposal that clearly would not work. He is an experienced lawyer and understands these issues as well as, and better than, most. Then the penny droppedhe does understand that the proposal would not work. It is a perfect way for him to be constructive in terms of dealing with the Bill, but he knows full well that it does not take us a single step forward.

Alistair Carmichael: Disgraceful.

Paul Goggins: I do not think that it is disgraceful, as the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position. Lord Lester had a hand in much of our anti-racism legislation, for which I respect him[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have sedentary interventions. If Members want to intervene on the Minister, they must do so in the usual way.

Paul Goggins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	There are two reasons why I cannot accept the Lester amendment. The first is that it is already covered by existing legislation, under which it is not necessary for racist language to be used for an offence of incitement to race hatred to be proved. The language used can be religious, and the case can be made now if it can be demonstrated that such language was accompanied by racist intent.

Evan Harris: Does the Minister therefore accept that if the British National party uses the word Muslims instead of Pakis, as, sadly, it has done in the past, it could be successfully prosecuted under current law? Muslims are not therefore uncovered in that respect by the current law.

Paul Goggins: I do not accept that because I do not accept that there is a direct read-across between race and faith. There may be for Jews and Sikhsin fact, there isbut there is not for Muslims. A Muslim could be Asian, African or white British.
	The Lester amendment and the view of those who support it are based on the false assumption that the Government are interested only in stopping the BNP making comments about Muslims that are a proxy for racial comments. Our intention is broader: we want to give the same protection that is given to Jews and Sikhs to all religious groups. We think that that is the right thing to do, which is why we have brought this legislation back for the third time. We think it right for people to be able to live free from fear. We think it important to stop extremists undermining the tremendous work that has gone on within, across and between faith communities as we have tried to build the community cohesion that we need.
	It is also important for us to prevent the exploitation of those who feel frustrated from time to time and who may be open to the influence of extremists. We have drawn a line in the sand. We think it wrong to incite hatred on the ground of religious belief. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke of 40 years' experience, and of all the doom and gloom and promises of negative impacts that have been heard during that time. None of that has happened; we have had very successful legislation, and I think that the same will be true of this Bill.

Dominic Grieve: I did not follow the Minister's logic when he suggested that the Lord Lester amendment would not give other religions the protection currently given to Jews and Sikhs. The protection given to Jews and Sikhs is based on their ethnic identity, not on their religious beliefs.

Paul Goggins: It is true that, in law, they are protected by the racial hatred legislation, because the religious hatred legislation does not exist. It is because of the close association between the two that Jews and Sikhs are covered: both are faith groups as well as race groups. We teased out that issue in Committee. I think it impossible to disentangle one element from the other, but I acknowledge that the protection that currently exists is on the ground of racial hatred. We seek to introduce legislation that will provide protection from the incitement of religious hatred. There is no direct read-across between race and faith. If the language is religious but the intention racial, that can already be proved.
	The third issue that I want to raise relates to the definition of religion or religious belief. I am grateful to those who tabled amendment No. 9 for enabling this discussion to take place. It is true that we have never defined religion in statute. We did not define it when we introduced the concept of religiously aggravated offences in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. We did not include it in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 when we increased the sentences that could be imposed for religiously aggravated offences. We did not include it in part 2 of the Equality Bill, which is currently being dealt with in the other place, and it is not in the employment regulations. It has not been a problem.
	There is a good reason for our not wishing to include that definition in the Bill, which I mentioned earlier. Over time, things may change. We need flexibility, which is why we should let the courts decide. As I said earlier, Strasbourg case law is helpful. The characteristics of religion, as decided by the court, are cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. It should be worthy of respect in a democratic society and, as made clear in the Campbell and Cosans case, should be compatible with human dignity. That definition would exclude a number of practices specified in the amendment. Human sacrifice is, apart from anything else, a serious criminal offence. Minister introduces legislation to protect Satanists might be a catchy headline, but it is Parliament's job to protect believers, not belief, and it is the court's job to define religion. It is rather important that the House should appreciate the distinction between the two. Our job is to focus on believers. This legislation is about protecting believers from others who incite hatred against them; it is the court's job to define religion.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield talked about the differences between religion and race, and I acknowledge that there are differences. Clearly, the two are not the same, but they are not as different as he suggests, and in that regard I cite my personal experience. I was born into a Roman Catholic family. Later in life, I made a rational choice about that religion in favour of it, but I cannot disentangle from having done so the fact that I was born in and brought up in that community. That has made a mark upon me and it is part of my identity. To say that my religion is simply a rational choice flies in the face of reality.
	The fourth and final issue is the beloved likely limb that lawyers love to talk about. Of course, the prosecution's first priority will always be to look for evidence of intent. Nothing in this legislation removes that obligation, but we know that intent is hard to prove. It is hard to be absolutely definitive about what is going on inside somebody's head, which is why, when the existing race hate legislation was introduced 20 years ago, Parliament included a second limba likely limb.
	The Public Order Act 1986 states that an offence is committed if
	having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.
	There are three points to consider. First, we are making some limited minor changes to the wording of the current likely limb, so that the offence is committed if
	words, behaviour or material are . . . likely to be . . . seen by any person in whom they are . . . likely to stir up racial or religious hatred.
	Some Members asked why we are doing so, and in particular whether doing so will lower the test. It will not, but there is some concern that the current offence turns too much on the prosecution having to show that the material was actually seen, rather than on the likelihood of it stirring up hatred.
	Let us say that somebody publishes material that is seen by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, who then takes it down, or that the material is reported to the police, who are first on the scene and then take it down. Should the perpetrator of that material, which is capable of inciting hatred on the ground of religious belief, get away with it just because the hon. Gentleman or the police got there first? No, they should not. We are seeking not to lower the test but to clarify the law, so that it turns on whether the material was likely to incite hatred, rather than on whether it was actually seen.
	Secondly, Members have made the accusation that we are somehow weakening the test by setting it too low. The most convincing evidence to the contrary is our having operated race hate legislation with a second likely limb for 20 years. It has been used effectively and has led to a modest number of prosecutions76and to 44 convictions. However, in addition the test of hatred in law is very highway beyond criticism or causing offence. Moreover, in law likely means probable, not liable or some lower test. Again, that is a very high test. Under the terms of section 18(5) of the 1986 Act, for the likely limb to be proved it also has to be shown that the defendant intended their words or behaviour to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or at least that they were aware that their conduct might be interpreted as such. So, according to either legbe it intention or the likely limba level of intent, or of awareness of the impact of one's conduct, must be proved.
	Thirdly, it is not possible to separate the religious aspects of this legislation from the race aspects. If we did so, we would simply re-create the two-tier system to which many of the amendments would lead, and which we do not want. We simply cannot have one law for Jews and Sikhs, and another for other groups. I offer my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) the assurance that, in relation to the theatre, all circumstances must be taken fully into account. The whole play must be considered, so individual lines and speeches would not be covered.
	Last and not certainly least, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) mentioned blasphemy. I know that he wants to support legislation that would remove the blasphemy laws, a discussion that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has promised

Evan Harris: rose

Paul Goggins: I am not able to give way. I must allow time for the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to respond.
	As I was saying, that is a discussion for another day and the hon. Gentleman's amendment would add nothing to the Bill.
	These were my reasons for opposing the group of amendments and I urge hon. Members to oppose them.

Dominic Grieve: I regret that the Minister did not succumb a little to the temptation that new clause 2 offered. He said some reasonably kind things about itfor example, that it was an honest attempt to try to reconcile a serious difference of view. The clause was certainly put forward in that spirit. I make no pretence to it being perfect in the way it is drafted, but it went a long way towards reflecting some of the concerns expressed on his own Benches about the Bill by seeking to centre on a definition of the difference between what constitutes hatred and the degree to which it must go.
	I believe that a court and a jury would have little difficulty in identifying words that were tantamount to an encouragement to violent acts. It is not a difficult concept for people to graspthe difference between ferocious criticism and words that imply that people should feel free to use violence against others. I say to the Minister, even at this late stage, that he might like to consider the issue carefully and we may be able to return to it.
	Although I put forward the new clause in that spirit, I am not minded to press it to a vote because there is a clear difference between some hon. Members and others about whether the entire Bill and its scope is desirable or whether it can be narrowed down solely to the issue of what is called the Lord Lester amendment, in terms of defining and protecting those whose religion is attacked as a pretext for an attack on their race and ethnic identity. That is my preferred course of action. As I see that the amendment enjoys support from all sides of the House, I will seek to withdraw the new clause in the belief that the Liberal Democrats will seek a vote on amendment No. 1.
	This has been a fascinating and wide-ranging debate, but the Minister must be aware of the disquiet expressed from both sides of the House about the way in which the Bill will work in practice. Unless the Government come up with a constructive solution to the problem, the Bill, however well intentioned, will end up as the source of polemical argument and will never see the statute book at all, or at least not for a long time. I cannot believe that that is a desirable state of affairs.
	There must be a way through the problem, but the Government show no sign of responding to it. The basic reason for that is that they have been hoisted on the petard of their own promises. They have made a promise of equality between Jews and Sikhs and other religious groups that is completely fictitious for two reasons. First, it is a fiction because the equality in fact already exists and would be enshrined in law if Lord Lester's amendment were to be accepted. Also, the protection currently enjoyed by Jews and Sikhs is on the basis of their racial identity and not on their religion.
	Secondly, it is fictitious because, in moving to create an offence of religious hatred, the Government are seeking to marry it in identical terms to racial hatred when the difference between racial hatred and religious hatred is so palpably plain that it makes a nonsense of the entire legislation.
	I shall withdraw new clause 2 and support those who are seeking to put amendment No. 1 to the vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1
	  
	Hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds

Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 1, line 3, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 7.[Mr. Carmichael.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 291.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I wish to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the contribution that they have made so far to consideration of the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and earlier today. I also wish to extend my thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of the whole House, to all the officials in my Department and elsewhere who have helped the smooth passage of the Bill.
	The Bill is small and finely and tightly focused, so there is not much room for manoeuvre, although we began our deliberations, as always, by listening and considering where there might be opportunities for improvement. We made one concession, on the powers for citizen's arrest, and I was pleased that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) saw that as a positive move.
	The hon. Gentleman and others have acknowledged that we had plenty of time for the scrutiny of the Bill. That was another welcome aspect of our proceedings. He and I have quite regular exchanges across the Floor of the House nowadays. I also enjoyed my exchanges with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and indeed all the hon. Members who took part in the Standing Committee. We had good discussions.
	Strong opinions have been expressed outside this place and I say again that I want to engage with them. I want to listen and to offer reassurance where possible. When we draw up the guidance for the legislation, I want to do so in dialogue.
	We have considered the Lester amendment. My argument is that it would take us no further. We have looked at definitions of religion, and I argued that that is a matter for the courts rather than for us. We have discussed the likely limb and I have tried to offer the House reassurance that it is still a high test, requiring a high level of intention or awareness. It is also a test of probability, not liability.

Douglas Hogg: Has the Minister looked at the definition of hatred so as to include only conduct that is likely to encourage others to commit acts of violence or other unlawful conduct?

Paul Goggins: I have looked carefully at hatred, and I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman missed our later discussions on the subject. A range of legislation, going back over many years, includes the word hatred. We have never sought to define that word previously, nor do we do so at this stage. It has never caused us a problem in the past and I do not think that it will in relation to the Bill.
	We are introducing the legislation first and foremost because we think that it is the right thing to do. We also want to remove the anomaly whereby Jews and Sikhs are protected while other religious groups are not. Currently, extremists can exploit a loophole in the legislation and we want to prevent that by ensuring that we close that loophole.
	I conclude by quoting, unexpectedly perhaps

Stephen Pound: Not Voltaire.

Paul Goggins: No, not Voltaire and not Mill, but the Leader of the Opposition, who, in the House this afternoon, in a measured comment on the dreadful events of last Thursday, said that the terrorists had tried with the fires of hate to destroy the bonds of love. I agree wholeheartedly. We need to take on the hate-mongers, whether they are terrorists or extremists operating in communities up and down our country. The Bill is not the whole answer. We have religiously aggravated offences on the statute book, and it is also an offence to incite violence and murder. But there is a gap, and, through the Bill, we seek to close it.
	Legislation on its own is not enough, however, and that is why all our efforts to build community cohesion so that people can live free from fear are so important.

Dominic Grieve: I join the Minister wholeheartedly in thanking all those who have participated in the consideration of the Bill. As always, it has been a pleasure to debate the matter with him. He is right: for the first time in my recollection, we can say that a Bill has had adequate scrutiny in the House. That is a rare event, but as I mentioned in Committee, it is certainly to the credit of the Whips, especially the Government Whips and, I suspect, of the Minister that the opportunity was made available to us.
	I am also grateful to the Minister for the fact that we have secured an amendment to the Bill. It may only be one amendment, but it certainly commended itself to me, and I am delighted therefore that the Government have taken it on board. Having said that, I fear that the Bill remains, despite that single improvement, seriously and catastrophically flawed. It seeks to do something that is in itself controversial, and I am afraid that it does so rather badly.
	Let us start with the controversial element. It is, as the Minister has acknowledged, a fettering of the freedom of speech and expression, but he and the Government say that that is necessary and that they have sought to draft the measure sufficiently tightly that freedom of speech will not be unduly restricted. Yet there are fundamental flaws in the Bill's presentation because, as has been acknowledged in Committee and, indeed, on Report, it is in fact extremely widely drafted and is dependent on a selective interpretation by those who may or not bring prosecutions in determining whom should be penalised for transgressing it. That is a very bad way to start a legislative process.
	I am afraid that the Bill is underpinned by the fact that it comes on the back of a series of promises that the Government have made to various groupsoften, I fear, raising expectations that will never be fulfilledin trying to create some kind of equal playing field between religious and racial hatred, and some of the fundamental difficulties with the legislation stem from that. If the Government had sought to present a Bill to the House that centred on religious hatred as a separate issue, I have a feeling that, even though there might have been very serious disagreements and, indeed, a great deal of debate, we might well have been able to focus on some of the key objectives that we have, in fact, been unable to achieve.
	In presenting various amendmentsparticularly new clause 2 and, indeed, new clause 4, presented by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)we seem to have come close, as the Minister identified, to considering some of the key things that need to be protected, as well as the mischief that were are trying to prevent. The Bill, sadly, achieves none of those things. Unless it is radically improved in another place, I fear that it will become a classic example of good intentions leading us down a dangerous road.
	Mention was made during the debates on Reportin the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)that we should derive comfort from the legislation on race relations and racial hatred because it was suggested when it was passed that it was very controversial. I was mindful of his comments. Indeed, I recollect that, although I was very young at the time, my late father expressed as a lawyer some disquiet about the legislation. It is precisely because I think that I can see where his disquiet may have been misplaced that I have certainly attempted to consider the Bill with the idea in mind of whether I could say in 20 years' time that I was mistaken. However, the profound difference between a religious belief and a racial identity inclines me to the view that I am not mistaken at all in taking the attitude that this legislation will, in fact, make no contribution to improving community relations in this country.
	The Minister quoted my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and I agree with everything that he said. There is a language of hatred and it needs to be fought, but the best way to fight it is by the public expression of views that those who hate others on matters where they should not do so are wrong. The Government's attempt to introduce what is in effect a mechanistic system of what is and what is not   appropriate, far from helping the situation, I believe, will make it worse. It is for those reasons that, although I appreciate the good intentions behind the Government's ideas, yet again, the Opposition are compelled to say that we cannot support the Bill on Third Reading. The improvements made to it are slight; the mischief that remains as a result of it is great.
	If the Government really want to tackle this issue, they must get away from the promises made to various people of an equal playing field, accept that religion and race are different, start to look at the real nature of the problem and try to come up with some constructive solutions. We can all agree that it is undesirable that people should preach violence or words that lead to violence, but what the Bill will achieve is the prevention of the perfectly lawful expression of differences of view, which is the very foundation on which our democracy has been based.

Ann Cryer: I have just voted in the Aye Lobby, so I feel that I owe it to my colleagues and the Minister to explain my background for doing so. I shall probably abstain on Third Reading.
	The strength of our society lies with its tolerance, understanding and diversity. That has emerged over centuries, and although the overwhelming majority of people enjoy the benefits that it brings, there are those, for their own odious and self-interested motives, who want to take advantage of the system and abuse it. An inevitable defect of decency and tolerance is allowing those who do not share our views or values to speak out and have their say too, however unpleasant and unwelcome that is.
	In May, I was returned in Keighley and Ilkley following a bitter, dreadful fight where hope triumphed over hate. Perhaps the most odious of characters, the chairman of the British National party, was soundly defeated into last place. With the defeat of extremism comes, I believe, a great responsibility to understand and address the reasons why it came to my constituency and to ensure that it never returns. One of the main reasons was the undercurrent of the feeling of unfairness and inequality that was able to take root. It is perceived that many minority groups are viewed differently and treated more leniently by the law as a result of their minority status. In essence, protection is offered from the full weight of the law for the fear of being branded a racist. That perception has crippled political, social and economic development in cities such as Bradford. Lord Ouseley, whose report was commissioned prior to the Bradford riots in 2001, spoke out about the fear of debate in Bradford and the need to have open and frank discussions. Some four years later, we are no further forward. The manifestation of the BNP in Bradford and Keighley is a result of that failure.
	I am not suggesting for one minute that protection under the law should not be offered to those who are in danger of persecution or violence. However, I am simply not convinced that well-intentioned legislation that emphasises differences and identifies segregation provides that protection. It might, in reality, have the reverse effect.
	In a rich society such as ours in which our diversity should be celebrated and encouraged, rather than concentrating on what makes us different, perhaps we should look more at what unites us: our humanity, social conscience, willingness to help others and steadfast faith in democracy, equality and achievement. Surely the celebration of our common values and beliefs must be the way forward, thus shifting away from an attempt to isolate or segregate any specific community or religion. That would be far more successful at encouraging integration, which is what I look forward to and work for.
	Protection comes in many forms: the weight of criminal justicewhich if applied is more than sufficientargument, and education. All those offer powerful solutions. If I am described as an infidel because of my beliefs, do we want the accuser to be prosecuted, or do we want to engage with that perverse view and demonstrate how erroneous it is? One of the fundamental principles of any religious belief must be tolerance, so allowing prosecution is a dangerous path to tread.
	How was the BNP defeated in Keighley and Ilkley? It was achieved not by prosecution, but by reasonable argument. Its members were exposed as liars and the party was shown to be the politically bankrupt group that it truly is. Opposition to the BNP was based on a broad coalition of trade unions, churches, mosques, voluntary groups and businessesindeed, all the decent people of Keighley and Ilkley. The sheer weight of argument, concentrating on those issues that unite us, irrespective of colour, religion, age and sex, for example, expose extremism for what it is. Take away the fear from debate, and our common interestshumanity, decency, tolerance and equalityare allowed to shine through. Restrictions, however well intentioned, stifle that debate. How can we ever expect to rid our society of the horrors of honour killings if we are limited by those whose perverse understanding of their religion makes them believe that it is their entitlement and they may threaten prosecution?
	Does the Bill take us in the wrong direction? Perhaps we should be looking in the opposite direction and remove the blasphemy laws from the statute book so that we are all of equal status. I cherish the diversity in my constituency and throughout the country. I am yet more determined to defeat extremism from wherever it originates. I want to have a constituency, and a country, that is comfortable with itself and its neighbours. That is my ambition. I am not convinced that legislation thatencourages further segregation, however, well intentioned, will provide the protections that it aims to deliver.

Alistair Carmichael: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I commend her on what I thought was a remarkably thoughtful and major contribution. I welcome her to the debate on the Bill.
	Consideration of the Bill in Committee was a pleasure, principally because of the good humoured way in which the Minister handled the proceedings. It is often said that the Government are leading us into a nanny state. I suspect that there may be some truth in that, and I suspect also that we have in the Minister a new Labour Mary Poppins. He is the man who provides the spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down. However, what he has provided us with in the Bill remains a pretty unpalatable medicine. It remains a medicine that is in search of an ill to cure.
	As I understood the Minister on Report, he seems to be telling us that the Government are bringing forward this legislation and insisting on it because they have a wish to address a perceived anomaly in the treatment of Jews and Sikhs under existing legislation, and other religious groups. At the same time, he accepted that the nature of that cover was such that other groups were already covered to the same extent by existing legislation. Perhaps it was not intellectually the Minister's finest hour, if I might put it like that.
	An interesting feature of the Minister's speech was his offer to provide draft guidance on good practice that would be used to implement the Bill's provisions. I welcome that. Such guidance will be useful. However, I wonder why we are hearing about guidance at this stage. What was the rush in introducing the Bill? Why have we had Second Reading, consideration in Committee followed by consideration on Report in such a short compass when we are in an 18-month Session? If the guidance is to be made available, surely it should have been provided to us at a time when we could have made proper use of it. The guidance might well have answered many of the objections that have been raised. We do not know because the refusal to publish it so far means that, effectively, the Government are asking us to buy a pig in a poke.
	I am embarrassed that we are sending forward a Bill that is so bad even after we have spent so much time on it. I accept what the Minister says that whatever faults there have been in the Government's approach to this proposed legislation, lack of time has not been one of them. I suggest, however, that the Bill is ill conceived in its thinking. It will be dangerous in its execution and I am confident that we have not seen the last of it.
	We, the elected House, should not be relying on the other place to give the Bill the sort of scrutiny and the sort of amendment that it so clearly requires. Come the vote on Third Reading, Liberal Democrat Members will be voting against it.

Frank Dobson: I was startled by the suggestion from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that there had been a rush to judgment. He may not remember it, but the proposal was first introduced by the Government in November 2001 in response to representations from Muslims throughout the country, who felt that they were being targeted by people stirring up religious hatred against them after the evil events in New York and Washington. I was surprised and taken aback by comments that implied that, because the representations were made by Muslims and the Government responded to them, there was something wrong. We spend all our time in politics responding to representationssometimes we reject them, at other times we take them on board. However, the proposal was introduced in response to reasonable representations.
	The air of today's debateand I know that there have   been serious discussions in Committeewas characterised by some nice academic and philosophical debating points. However, it is not nice, academic or philosophical on the streets of my constituency at the moment, and neither was it in 2001. Women are taking their children to school and collecting them in fear because they wear a hijab or headscarf. I want to protect them against the hatred stirred up against them by hate-filled people who make them go about their ordinary day-to-day life in fear. We owe it to all our constituents to try to protect them against people who incite fear.
	One objection to the Bill rests on the fact that it is acceptable to outlaw incitement to racial hatred, because race is innate whereas as religion is notit is a matter of choice. Several Members, including the Minister, who made a very fine speech in response to an earlier debate, pointed out that most people are born into the religion in which they remain. I shall ignore that point, however, and urge people to pursue the logic of their argument: it is all right to try to protect people against incitement to hatred because of their race, which they cannot change, but it is not all right to try to protect people from incitement to hatred because of their religion, which they can change. To me, that practically amounts to an incitement to incitement. People can put themselves right with the hate-mongers by changing their religion or abandoning their beliefs. That is not a sound proposition to make in a democratic Parliament.
	We have heard all this stuff about comedians whose freedom of expression will be curtailed, as they will be deprived of the right to incite people to hatred against others because of their religion. That is a rather extreme joke, and I am notorious for politically incorrect jokes myself. People will not fall foul of the provision unwittingly. Under the Bill, they must intend to stir up hatred or, in all the circumstances, be likely to do so. If comedians cannot manage to avoid that, I suggest that they shut up shop altogether.
	Clearly the measure, like the law against racial hatred, has two effects. First, it has a genuine deterrent effect. The law against incitement to racial hatred has deterred a great deal of mouthing off, which was dangerous. That is indicated, in part, by the relatively low number of cases that have been brought. Secondly, it was a declaratory matter. We declared that incitement to racial hatred was wrong. That is an unusual concept in the common law. If we pass the Bill, we will be declaring that incitement to hatred of people because of their religion is wrong. That will be another step forward. Who needs the right, which we apparently want to maintain for them, to incite hatred of people because of their religion? I submit that no one requires that right, and if they feel they currently have it, we ought to deprive them of it.
	Finally, this is no rush to judgment. This is a proposition that I was advocating before the Government introduced it in November 2001. On Second Reading I said that I hoped we would pass the law before there was a major terrorist incident, so that for once the law got in in advance of events. Sadly, we had the awful events of Thursday last week. Two of the explosions were in my constituency. We are not rushing to judgment. It is a total coincidence that we are changing the law on the Monday afterwards, but it is the right and proper thing to do.
	The circumstances to which the Government proportionately and properly responded in 2001 have arisen again. If we take seriously the protection of all our fellow citizens, it is up to us to offer that protection. For all its possible shortcomings and difficulties, the Bill does that. I hope that the House of Lords leaves it aloneit does not need to come back to this placeand that we get a new law and implement it.

Douglas Hogg: I shall be brief. I listened with great interest to the last debate. The flaw in the discussions in the House is not the distinction between racial hatred and religious hatred. I do not think that there is a distinction worth making there. The error lies in the concept of what should be made illegal.
	I am the first to acknowledge that stirring up hatred is a thoroughly bad thing to do. It is quite wrong and immoral, but that does not mean that it should be illegal. When one is determining what is or is not to be made illegal, one must consider the consequences. The question that I ask myself is not whether what someone is doing is immoral or offensive, but whether it is disruptive to the state. I come to the conclusion that it becomes disruptive to the state only if the consequence of the emotion that has been whipped up is to cause serious peril to the state. That is why, in the course of a series of interventions on my hon. Friends and others, I have tried to associate the concept of hatred with conduct likely to cause violence or other criminal activity. I should like the House to stand back and to consider the definition of hatred, and to say that only that which is likely to cause illegal acts and violence to those who are being criticised should be rendered illegal. The fact that one may cause other people to be held in a state of hatred, moral contempt or whatever should not make the act illegal, albeit that I am the first to concede that it is immoral to do it.
	I hope that those in the other place will consider the definition of hatred, whether in the context of religious or racial hatred, so as only to outlawby which I mean to render criminally unlawfulthose things that are likely to result in acts of violence or criminal activities.

Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) spoke powerfully about the need to do something. That is always a powerful call, and no one who has taken part in the debate has dissented from the proposition that there is an issue that needs to be tackled.
	Our task when we turn to legislation is to decide whether the issue is being tackled in the most appropriate way. It probably would have been much better for the Government to introduce a separate piece of religious hatred legislation, not to piggy-back it on the top of existing racial hatred legislation. That is the source of much of the difficulty that we have experienced. That is why we have worried about the absence of a definition of religion or of hatred and about the fusion of issues of belief and believers.
	It is not good enough simply to say that we should do something because certain people are under serious attack or pressure, because there is a line that it would be very dangerous to crossthe line that says, You cannot properly and legitimately attack religious belief systems. It is fundamental to our kind of society that we are able to attack religious belief systems as we can attack political belief systems, cultural belief systems, and all other types of belief systems. Perhaps the Government said, as part of their conversation with the communities that came to them, We want to do everything that we can to protect you, but you in turn must understand that it is part of this society that people are able legitimately to attack religious belief systems. Those things that are hateful should be hated; we should not be too squeamish about that.
	I would caution those who have suggested that the events of the past few days contribute decisively to the arguments about the Bill. One could make the argument on both sides. One could argue that it is even more necessary to preserve the right to attack religious bigotry in all its forms, given that people use religion as a cloak for all kinds of extremism. It would be just as possible to argue that because whole communities may be victimised because of what has happened, we need to give them extra protection. Both arguments could be made, but it is not sensible at this moment to deploy either of them. We should try to keep our heads and get the balance right.
	New clause 4, which I tabled, was, for some reason, not called. Perhaps I missed the moment. It meant that I was deprived of the opportunity of telling my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I intended to withdraw it. However, I was going to withdraw it on the basis that I am a gullible chap, he is a gentle and persuasive Minister and I therefore keep believing everything that he tells me.
	My hon. Friend told me on Second Reading that he would table an amendment that would deal with our concerns and provide the appropriate balance. I was therefore disappointed when I discovered today that he had not done that. He has now told me that he will re-examine the matter and that my amendment was too weak. By implication, he wants a stronger amendment. He must therefore be prepared to consider the next stage and return with an amendment that covers our concerns and finds the correct balance. In that spirit, had I been given the opportunity, I would have withdrawn the amendment.

Patrick Cormack: I am sure that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) feels, as I do, that, perhaps not for the first time, our hope lies in the Lords.
	No one could impugn the good faith and intentions of either the Under-Secretary, who is an amiable and genuine chap, or the Government. However, not only the road to hell but that to legislative chaos is paved with good intentions. If there were time and it were in order, I could cite the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and many other knee-jerk reaction Bills, which you and I, Mr. Speaker, have seen pass through the House and that subsequently either passed into oblivion or caused danger.
	The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) made a powerful speech. I am sure that he did not mean to imply that, if the Bill had been enacted four years ago, the events of last Thursday would not have happened, but it is important that people read his speech and my comments on it in that context because a careless listening or reading could give the wrong impression.
	I was moved by the testimony of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I am delightedI am sure we all arethat she so thoroughly beat off the nasty challenge of the BNP. Her words deserve wide circulation and careful study because if we stand for anything in this place, it is freedom of thought and expression, unfettered freedom of speech and, of course, proper constraints and sanctions against those who do what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) described: encourage people to violence and evil. They must be dealt with. No hon. Member would disagree with that.
	However, the Bill is not the way to achieve that. I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate because I was still fighting the general election. However, I received petitions, containing many hundreds of signatures, and many dozens of letters from churches and chapels in my constituency. They were from ordinary, decent people, who have as high a regard for their Muslim friends and neighbours as the hon. Member for Keighley and I do. I remind hon. Members, 10 years to the day after Srebrenica, that I was one of the few who spoke out against those appalling atrocities in Bosnia. However, my constituents do not believe that the Bill is the way to help their Muslim friends and neighbours.
	My constituents are also concerned about the inhibitions that the Bill might place on them in proclaiming their beliefs and faith fearlessly and openly. We want a society where people can proclaim and defend their beliefs and, yes, attack those of others if they feel that they are wrong. We want a truly tolerant and free society. I am sure that the Government and the Under-Secretary want that. However, the Bill, which the Under-Secretary clearly took through the Committee with great good humour, is not the way to achieve that. I shall vote against the Bill without any qualms or inhibitions. I hope very much that, when it comes back from the other place, it will have been significantly improved, and that the points raised in new clause 4 and the other amendments that have been rejected, withdrawn or not moved tonight will have been inserted into it so that it becomes workable and manageable. In its present state, it manifestly is not.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said on the last day in Committee something that rang a bell for me. He said that the Bill walked on eggshells. He was almost right. It certainly walks a tightrope between trying to maintain freedom of speech and trying to ensure that everyone in this land has an equal opportunity to express and enjoy their religion without suffering the fear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) described. That is why Labour Members' advocacy of the Bill has sometimes been cautious, rather than aggressive or over-assertive. Those who have argued against elements of the Bill, although they have expressed serious and important concerns, have also perhaps overstated them.
	I support the Bill for the simple reason that, at present, a legal anomaly leaves a growing part of this country unprotected and uncertain of its relationship to society at a time when there is growing disaffection among many young Muslim people. I also support the Bill because of the potential for growing hostility towards people in this land who seem to be different by virtue of their race or their religion. It is important for the state to take action in these circumstances, even if that action is merely declaratory, as my right hon. Friend said earlier.
	We shall need to do certain things in the near future to ensure that this legislation works effectively. For example, there should be greater protection under the law for places of worship, especially for Jewish and Muslim cemeteries. We should not rely on ancient legislation such as the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860 in that regard. We should enact proper legislation to ensure that such protection exists for all religions. I also happen to agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that we should abolish the blasphemy law, and if I thought for an instant that this legislation would result in an advancement of that law, I should not be able to vote for it. There are other hate crimes in this land, some of which are perpetrated by people who hold very strong religious views, and I hope that the Equality Bill will give us an opportunity to deal with those crimes as well.

Gary Streeter: We all agree on one thing here tonight, and that is that the Minister is a well-intentioned person. However, in the end we are judged not on the width of the Minister's smile but on the quality of our legislation, and this is a bad Bill. If we pass it into law, we shall be doing the nation a disservice. The Bill is unnecessary and, although the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) made a powerful speech, he did not put forward the other side of the story.
	The Bill is cloaked in uncertainty: it does not define religion or hatred. If we pass it into law, people out there will still not know what they are free to say and what they are not. The Bill is also likely to have unintended consequences. We all want tolerance, harmony and respect between the religious communities in this country, but the Bill is likely to provoke the opposite. The Government have said that they will listen to reasonable objections, but they have done so with closed ears. If the Bill becomes law, we shall stumble into darkness and uncertainty, and I urge the House to reject it.

Lynne Featherstone: It is a great irony that the Bill will penalise those whom it seeks to protect. I have never been worried about jokes or comedians in this regard, but I am worried now. Religion is not some cosy thing that people do. It often preaches hatred and incites people to share such views, even though we might wish that it were otherwise. One of the reasons that there were 2,000 or 3,000 religious leaders outside here today was that they were concerned that they would no longer be able to practise their religion freely in this country. It is a great irony that, in seeking to achieve that freedom, the Government might prohibit it. I am also concerned that in the current climate of terrible attacks on Muslims, such a Bill is the wrong answer. The answer is education. Declaration is not enough.
	Because I must finish, I will simply say that legislation will not stop hatred, and legislation will not stop incitement to hatred. It will simply and sadly contribute to it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 229.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.[Mr. Dhanda]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.[Mr. Dhanda]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved. [Mr. Dhanda.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Defence

That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 4th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.[Mr. Dhanda.]
	Question agreed to.

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act

Ordered,
	That the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Area) Order 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 1537) dated 8th June 2005, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. [Mr. Dhanda.]

HEPATITIS C

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Dhanda]

Bob Laxton: In the last Parliament, I was an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on hepatology, which produced a report on hepatitis C in March of this year. My hon. Friend the Minister will have had a copy. Yes, it was hard hitting; it was hard hitting because it deserved to be.
	The action taken so far by the Government is failing and will continue to fail those who carry the disease, fail the standards of care that we have come to expect of the welfare state after the second world war and fail to head off a largely preventable disease load described authoritatively by a former US Surgeon-General as a timebomb until they recognise that this is a serious threat to public health that has to be prioritised.
	Colleagues will not be surprised to learn that I do not often read The Sun, but last week its health writer Jane Symons did an interesting piece that reflected the fact that anyone can catch hepatitis C, including Pamela Anderson from Baywatch, who caught it sharing her husband's tattoo needle. There are a number of ways hepatitis C is transmittedfrom sharing needles to blood transfusions that took place before 1991 and sharing razors or toothbrushes with someone who has the virus.
	There are estimated to be between 200,000 and 500,000 people who are HCV positive in the UK, but nobody knows exactly how many, although the so-called Action Plan on Hepatitis C published in 2004 promised, in the future tense, to develop modelling techniques to assess future numbers of patients requiring treatment. Perhaps my hon. Friend could let me know how far we have come since then on defining numerical parameters of the disease. We know that the great majority of those carrying the infection80 to 90 per cent. of the totaldo not know that they are incubating the disease and are storing up future problems for themselves and for society.
	The Government's overall approach could be describedcharitably, in my viewas watch and wait. Actually, it is more like wait, because with 90 per cent. of infections undiagnosed, watch is hardly applicable. Besides, there are no plans for any of the proactive screening programmes that are recommended in the report. With the best will in the world, how can we expect to identify the HCV-positive population otherwise? Perhaps the Government have targets to identify that population. If so, let us hear them today to   assess how ambitious and realistic they are and to measure future progress against them.
	Watch and wait also fails on two other counts. First, there is increasing evidence from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and from the European Association for the Study of the Liver that the earlier and younger that patients are treatedeven if they have perfectly normal liver enzyme levelsthe more likely we are to achieve a sustained virological response indicative of a cure. Effective treatments involving ribavirin and pegylated interferon are available and can cure some 60 per cent. of the patients who take them.
	Secondly, while watch and wait saves expenditure on cures in the short term, it costs so much more in the long term. Eventually, without treatment, 20 to 50 per cent. of HCV-positive people will develop very unpleasant liver diseaseblighting and shortening their lives and placing an extremely heavy burden on the NHS as the number of people with this infectious and transmissible condition grows. I hope that the Treasury has no hand in this short-termism.
	No doubt the Minister has been studying our report, which makes 13 recommendations. They would bear repetition in a longer debate, but it would be helpful to know now whether the Government are minded to accept any of those recommendations. My hon. Friend may find it more convenient to write to me at length with her evaluation of the points made. There are, however, two areas that I would particularly like to stress.
	First, I was disappointed by the skimpy, one-page chapter in the hepatitis C action plan, which boldly set the question, International Outlook: How do we Compare? It proceeded not to answer that question. Basically, this underwhelming chapter tells us something of the incidence of the disease in other countries but nothingabsolutely nothingabout the lessons that we can learn from their successes and failures.
	For instance, in France, where the challenge and burden of disease is even greater, 50 per cent. of the HCV-positive population has been identified and a target of 85 per cent. identification set. Where are the targets for England? Closer to home, it is quite clear that the Scots have addressed this issue with more seriousness and speed than we have in England. Some 36 per cent. of the HCV-positive population have been identifiedapproximately double the 19 per cent. claimed as diagnosed in England in the action plan. I should say that that depends on the Government's low estimate of 200,000 HCV-positive people being correct. All the specialist hepatologists that we spoke to felt that the number was closer to the top of the range500,000. In that case, the proportion diagnosed in England falls to something like 8 per cent.
	It is also clear that Scottish data collection and thinking on screening is in advance of the position in England. Health Protection Scotland is producing an annual report on its Hepatitis C action plan. Where is the English equivalent? Is it not time that we in England set the old exam question of compare and contrast so that officials absorb and apply the lessons from elsewhere?
	I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating the Hepatitis C Trust, which has listened to the recommendation of the report and commissioned a comparison study between what is happening here and what has been done in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Surely, in such an important area of public health, the Government should be working in partnership with the voluntary sector and taking advantage of its expert knowledge and networks to provide a clear picture of how other countries are dealing with the condition. The compact between the Government and the voluntary sector commits the Department of Health to forge long-term strategic partnerships with the sector and involve it in the planning and delivery of treatment and services. However, in this case it appears that the Department is happy to leave the Hepatitis C Trust to it.
	Secondly, I am convinced that we are not adequately addressing the challenge of the disease in UK prisons. Prisons are certainly reservoirs, if not hotbeds, of the disease. I have written to the Minister already about that to give her some advance warning of the matter. A study of a Scottish prison in the American Journal of Epidemiology showed a rising incidence of hepatitis C in inmate cohorts the longer they remain in jail. The most likely explanation for that is injecting in prison. The Scottish study found an initial incidence of 16 per cent. infection among inmates in 19992000. That is considerably higher than the percentage quoted to me from some now rather aged statistics of 199798, which was 9 per cent. among adult men in English prisons. We appear to have a significant proportion of male prisoners in the UK who are HCV positive, with prisoners more likely to emerge HCV positive than when they went in, with the most likely cause of the rising incidence being injected drug use.
	The Minister will no doubt say that responsibility is delegated and that patient care trusts bear responsibility for the treatment of prisoners. The reality is that the prison population is transient and inmates can be moved from one end of the country to the other with little or no warning. Unfortunately, the response time for securing treatment is seldom as swift, resulting in halved treatment regimes for some and an absence of treatment for others. It is shocking that prisoners, who are in society's care, should appear to be more likely to emerge from prison with hepatitis C than when they went in and that effective and available methods of preventing that are not being deployed. Action is needed to ensure that the punishment for prisoners with hepatitis C is not an irreparably damaged liver.
	Prisoners are not routinely screened for hepatitis C. They should be, because they are a clearly identifiable high-risk population that would be easy to target. We are missing a significant opportunity to address a problem, which will only grow to be far more damaging, by effectively ignoring it. As a former senior medical officer, Dr. S. Hopkins wrote in The Daily Telegraph on 24 August 2004:
	The crisis is no longer in waiting. It is here now, fermented in prisons and released in a continuous stream into the general population.
	It is a crisis that should be addressed rather than ignored.
	I believe that the Government should be doing more, particularly on public education. Hepatitis C is preventable, but unlike HIV/AIDS it is not a virus that many people know much about. Because of the common absence of symptoms, many people tend to be unaware that they have a hepatitis C infection until some time afterwards. For instance, 30 per cent. of people diagnosed with hepatitis C do not display any symptoms and are often unsure of where they caught the virus. A public education programme or campaign should focus on how hepatitis C is caught and, for anyone who already has the virus, how to avoid transmitting it. General practitioners should also be given more support in the treatment of viral hepatitis, perhaps as an enhanced service. A small pilot with specially trained GPs supported by a helpline and a clear set of referral guidelines would be useful.
	Prevention is better than cure, and that certainly applies to hepatitis C. Allowing the problem to fester only stores up bigger shocks for the future. Different people react differently to hepatitis C. The lucky ones will suffer from chronic fatigue and not have the ability to live their day to day lives as fully as they would like. The unlucky will die of liver disease.
	I previously presented a debate on childhood anaemia, a condition that has long-lasting problems in adulthood if left untreated. Hepatitis C is the same. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the points that I have made and very much look forward to her response.

David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on securing the debate, and I agree with absolutely everything that he said. He and I are fellow officers of the all-party group on hepatology, which was formed in July 2003. We are very grateful for the advice we have been given by the Hepatitis C Trust, which has such diverse patrons as Robbie Williams, Miss Emilia Fox, the Marchioness of Bute and the former Eurovision song contest winner, Miss Sandy Shaw.
	As far as the all-party group is concerned, this is a very big problem. It is clear that the Government have accepted that it is a problem. It is certainly encouraging that the Government launched a public awareness campaign in December, but I and other Members are unclear about whether the Government also see it as a big problem. Certainly, the Government are not running a big awareness campaign. There are no billboards and no messages on television or radio. Nor has there been any serious attempt to reach ethnic minorities, although the high prevalence of the disease in countries of origin suggests that those communities may contain many undiagnosed sufferers. Can the Minister tell us what the Government's plans are, apart from translating English information leaflets into other languages?
	At the launch in December, the chief medical officer promised that the awareness campaign would be effective, and it is vitalliterally, because the lives of those hundreds of thousands of young, undiagnosed people are at riskthat it be effective. Can the Minister assure the all-party group that a full evaluation will be made and that the results will be published?
	The campaign is for two years, but I believe that the issue is too important to wait until then to assess its effectiveness. When will the market research exercise by the Minister's Department commence and will it be repeated? What can the Minister tell the House about the first results of the national outcomes indicators, such as the total number of laboratory confirmed hepatitis C infection reports for 2005? I believe that she answered a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) a few months ago on that point.
	If the campaign is ineffective, hundreds of thousands of people will remain undiagnosed and may become seriously ill. Many of them will need liver transplants. How will the Government cope, given that the liver transplant service is already stretched? I have one constituent who, according to the consultants attending him, is No. 1 on the list for a liver transplant, but he has been in that position since just before Christmas. The shortage of livers for people who need transplants is very serious. If the Minister does not have time to reply to those points tonight, I hope that she will write to the all-party group and tell us what the Government plan to do in the next few months.

Caroline Flint: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his success in obtaining this debate. I commend him for his work as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary hepatology group, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on his work as chair of the group.
	Despite what my hon. Friend has said this evening, I hope that I will be able to assure him that the Government recognise the importance of hepatitis C as a public health issue, both globally and nationally. The Hepatitis C Trust and others in the voluntary sector will continue to lobby Government, because that is their function, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we have good working relationships with the trust and other voluntary sector organisations and, indeed, we provide grant funding for some of their activities. Officials also have regular contact with the trust and have sought to involve it in the awareness campaign. The trust will no doubt continue to press for more, as that is part of their remit.
	We are fortunate to have, but are not for one minute complacent about, a relatively low prevalence of hepatitis C compared with other developed countries and many other parts of the world. Even so, hepatitis C represents a major challenge in terms of preventing new infections, reducing the level of undiagnosed infections and ensuring that patients with the disease get the care that they need.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the chief medical officer's work to try to highlight the issue in the health community through his infectious disease strategy, Getting Ahead of the Curve. Demonstrating that the condition was an infectious disease problem required intensified action. Subsequently, in 2002, we published the hepatitis C strategy for England for consultation, with proposals to improve prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Last year, we followed that up with a hepatitis C action plan for England.
	I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Southend, West said this evening. I shall not be able to answer every point, but I am open to meeting representatives of the all-party group to go through its report and recommendations and to discuss the issues further. I hope that we can offer some reassurance that we have begun work in several fields. The four key areas are surveillance and research, increasing awareness and detecting undiagnosed infections, high-quality services for people with hepatitis C and prevention.
	Raising awareness is an essential part of the campaign and in July 2004, after we launched the action plan, we sent all general practitioners and practice nurses in England a comprehensive hepatitis C information pack for health care professionals. We also sent it to a range of other relevant health professionals because, unfortunately, the knowledge base among those at the front line of our services was quite low.
	We also established a new hepatitis C awareness website for health care professionals and the public: www.hepc.nhs.uk. These are still early days, but I am pleased that use of the website is growing; currently, there are about 4,500 visits per month, with a 56 per cent. increase in June 2005 compared with the previous month. That is to be welcomed.
	We have supplemented those resources with features in a range of health care journals for professionals and through exhibition stands at conferences. The public awareness campaign for hepatitis C began last December with the introduction of the new NHS hepatitis C telephone information line, which provides confidential information and advice through personal communication and will complement the website and the more general service offered by NHS Direct.

Lindsay Hoyle: As my hon. Friend is aware, there are two prisons in my constituency. Is there information for inmates and for staff to warn them about the consequences of hepatitis C and how contagious it can be?

Caroline Flint: I am sure that there is, but I will check. In my former position at the Home Office, I had responsibility for the national drugs strategy and it is important that such links be recognised. Injecting drug users are a vulnerable group, which is why the strategy refers to drug agency teams and multi-agency working. I hope that will include prisons to ensure that effective work is done. As primary care trusts will have a greater role in prison health, they will be looking into those points. As Members will be aware, new legislation introduces drug testing on charge and arrest and mandatory drug assessments, so we shall be addressing hepatitis C and other issues with such people even before they get to court. Home Office officials have assured us that that is part of the package of support given to people whose use of drugs leads to their offending behaviour. I have three prisons in my constituency, and I am aware that the issue is important; the risks are high for people in prison, especially from the shared use of needles.
	We are closely monitoring usage of the telephone helpline. In March, for example, there were 242 calls. About six in 10 callers were women and only four in 10 were male, which is interesting given the prevalence of hepatitis C. About eight in 10 callers were calling for themselves, a family member or friend. More than four in 10 calls were for information and advice about the different ways in which hepatitis C can be spread and nearly three in 10 calls were about hepatitis C testing. More than half the callers were aged between 26 and 55. More than one fifth of calls resulted in a referral to another agencya general practitioner or a specialist voluntary organisationso that people could take up the support they needed. So I hope that that gives an indication of some of the work that we are doing through the awareness campaign to provide practical access to advice for those people who seek it.
	Another aspect and a novel activity in the public awareness campaign is the open-air exhibition of photographs of people with hepatitis C taken by a professional photographer who herself has been successfully treated for hepatitis C. The first exhibition took place in Leicester square in March and has recently begun to tour regional cities, starting in Nottingham last week. The exhibition provides a helpful focus to say that these are people like us and to find another way to reach a wider community in city centres. That approach involves the strategic health authority, primary care trust and others, so where the exhibition takes place, the local health services are geared up to respond to the demand for services or information.
	Local and regional media are also involved, and the combination of those three factors has given a tangible sense of focus to the photographic exhibition campaign. We are keeping an eye on the nature and scale of that campaign and how it has worked, as well as anything else that we may be doing. We are not waiting to the end of the programme to decide what works and what does not; we are trying to make assessments as we go along to see what is working. Obviously, we have to look at what is not working as well.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North mentioned improving surveillance of hepatitis C, and I agree that it is important to improve the evidence base as a way to measure progress. We have funded the Health Protection Agency, which is responsible for the national surveillance of hepatitis C, to carry out several projects so that we can get better estimates, identify any trends and model the possible future disease burden to help in the planning of services. For example, the HPA is running a project to improve the data collected when people are tested for hepatitis C, including clinical and risk factor information.
	Of local interest to my hon. Friend will be the Trent cohort study of patients infected with hepatitis C, which is co-ordinated by Nottingham university. That study, which the Department is also funding, is investigating the natural history of hepatitis, trends of referral in the region and the effect of antiviral drug therapy on the long-term outcome of hepatitis C-related liver disease. Derby city hospital is participating in that study.
	My hon. Friend asked whether, as is proposed by the Scottish Executive, there should be a national database in England to collect information. We will consider the benefits and feasibility of establishing such a database in England when the output of the Scottish system becomes available next year. However, we must judge that against the Trent work to find out what added benefits we would achieve by extending the database even further.
	Injecting drug users are an important target group, as they are at greatest risk of hepatitis C. We provided the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse with 1 million for local projects to increase the hepatitis C testing of injected drug users and related activities. About 45 local projects were funded, including one by the Derbyshire drug and alcohol action team to develop a new hepatitis C service for drug users in north Derbyshire. Those projects should help forge local partnerships and, we hope, drive up good practice and prevention. We are also funding the NTA to carry out a national audit of needle exchange schemesone of the actions in the hepatitis C action plan for England. The drug interventions programme, as I said, gives us another opportunity to capture a group of people for whom hepatitis C is a real possibility and certainly to screen and test them and get them appropriate treatment for the future.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me an opportunity to participate in the debate and to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) for initiating it. I have a constituent by the name of Barry Fitzgerald who must go to Paris and then Milan to get a fibre scan test carried out. I wrote to the Minister to establish how many of those fibre scanning machines we have in the UK. They provide, as she may be aware, a less intrusive way to establish the extent to which hepatitis C has infected the body. The machines cost an individual about 40 to use. I understand that there are no such machines in the UK, so I wonder whether the Minister can clarity whether there is any intention to introduce one in this country.

Caroline Flint: I am afraid that I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman on that issue. I cannot recall whether I have dealt with that letter. I understand that issues about treatment are important and PCTs must look at them in considering how they commission treatment, but I would prefer to write to him in detail about that, rather than respond this evening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North asked about developing modelling techniques to help to project the numbers of patients. The Trent study will help us to do that and the Department of Health has also funded the Health Protection Agency to allow it to work with the Medical Research Council's biostatistics unit to provide estimates of the future burden of hepatitis C-related liver disease. The results from that ongoing study will be submitted to a peer review journal for publication later this year. Again, such information helps not only Ministers, but hon. Members, because they can raise issues with their PCTs and others about the cost-benefits of work in the area and the way in which larger future costs to the health service can be prevented in the future. The outcome will thus be interesting.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West raised a point about targeted awareness. We have plans to implement that, especially for minority ethnic communities. That will start later this year and will form an important part of what we should do. There should not necessarily be a one-size-fits-all approach to campaigning. We must determine how to reach different groups and also decide what each group's concerns might be, because they may vary from one group to another.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North asked about proactive screening. We have published information and guidance for health professionals and the public that highlights those who are thought to be at risk of hepatitis C infection and should thus consider being tested, or be offered testing. That forms part of the awareness campaign. There is a continuing programme to raise awareness of hepatitis C among the public and those at risk. We hope that the awareness website, the telephone service and the regional road shows and photographic exhibitions will all contribute to that.
	The prospects for people diagnosed with hepatitis C have improved markedly over the past decade. Antiviral drug therapy has been recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and has good success rates. NICE is currently considering the case for treating patients with mild hepatitis C in the light of research funded by the Department. Further guidance on that is expected next year, which is why it is important to diagnose people with hepatitis C.
	We recognise the importance of hepatitis C as a public health issue. Alongside unprecedented increases in NHS funding, we have provided central support for specific aspects of the implementation of the hepatitis C action plan for England. We have asked strategic health authorities to ensure that local arrangements are in place to provide appropriate services, which will involve collaboration with their primary care trust, clinicians and agencies such as the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, the Health Protection Agency and voluntary sector organisations
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.